Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Lrs Of Trilochan Singh vs . The State Of Rajasthan & Ors. on 23 April, 2015
Author: Sandeep Mehta
Bench: Sandeep Mehta
[1]
S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.7101/2006
LRs of Trilochan Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
ORDER
S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7101/2006 LRs of Trilochan Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Date of order : 23.4.2015 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA Mr.RS Saluja, for the petitioners.
Mr.KD Singh, Dy.GC, for the respondents.
<><><> By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner Trilochan Singh has approached this Court assailing the action of the respondents in not extending him the benefits of promotion as Assistant Foreman and Foreman in light of the settlement dated 20.9.1985 arrived at between the respondent IGNP Department and the Rajasthan Nahar Rashtriya Majdoor Union (INTUC), Bikaner. Two other employees, who were similarly placed as the petitioner namely Shri Mangi Lal Gour and Shri Chhabi Singh approached this Court by way of S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.4416/1994 praying for the very same relief. The writ petition was accepted by this Court on 10.1.2003 and it was directed that the petitioners therein were entitled to the actual benefit of promotions w.e.f. 1.9.1985. The aforesaid Shri Mangi Lal and Shri Chhabi Singh were given [2] S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.7101/2006 LRs of Trilochan Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. benefit of the settlement of 1985 in pursuance of the said judgment by an office order dated 5.7.2005, which has been annexed with the writ petition as Annex.5. The petitioner retired from service in the year 1997. It is relevant to mention here that during pendency of the instant writ petition, the petitioner passed away on 2.5.2012 and on an application preferred by his legal representatives, this Court vide order dated 21.5.2014 impleaded them as petitioners in the instant writ petition. Now, only the question of monetary relief survives. During the service tenure of the petitioner, he faced two departmental inquiries, in one of which, he was awarded the penalty of stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect in the year 1992. The other penalty imposed on the petitioner was of censure. The petitioner was further subjected to another departmental inquiry under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules but the said departmental inquiry came to be dropped on 7.1.1998 subsequent to his retirement. After the benefits of the settlement dated 20.9.1985 and consequent promotion was granted to Shri Mangi Lal and Shri Chhabi Singh by order (Annex.5), the petitioner submitted representations to the respondent authorities for being extended the very same benefits The authorities recommended the petitioner's case for grant of promotions by letters (Annex.6 and 7) dated 31.8.2005 and 5.9.2005. [3]
S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.7101/2006 LRs of Trilochan Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. However, no further action was forthcoming on the said recommendations upon which the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition. The relief prayed for in the instant writ petition is mainly opposed on the ground of delay.
Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on a Constitution Bench Judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar & Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors reported in AIR 1974 SC 259 and contends that if no third party rights are created by the belated claim for enforcement of fundamental rights, then the claim filed in this regard cannot be thrown out on the ground of delay. He further submits that denial of financial benefits flowing from promotion is a recurring wrong and thus, as the wrong still continues till date, the writ petition preferred on behalf of the petitioner cannot be termed to be belated. In regard to this context, he places reliance on a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Tarsem Singh reported in (2008) 11 SCALE 594. He further submits that as the petitioner's prayer for being granted the benefits of promotion was under
consideration as is evident from the recommendations (Annex.6 and 7) dated 31.8.2005 and 5.9.2005, it cannot be said that the lis is belated. He, therefore, prays that the writ [4] S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.7101/2006 LRs of Trilochan Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. petition deserves to be accepted and the respondents be directed to extend the benefits of two promotions as Assistant Foreman and Foreman in terms of the settlement dated 20.9.1985 akin to the benefits granted to Mangi Lal and Chhabi Singh by order (Annex.5) and to make payment of the consequential monetary benefits flowing therefrom to the petitioner's legal representatives.
Per contra, Shri K.D.Singh, the learned Dy.GC appearing for the respondents has opposed the writ petition principally on the ground of delay. He however candidly concedes that the department itself did not dispute the petitioner's right to be promoted in light of the settlement dated 20.9.1985 as is evident from the recommendations (Annex.6 and 7) dated 31.8.2005 and 5.9.2005. However, the only opposition to the prayer made in the instant writ petition is that the petitioner raised challenge to the alleged illegal action of the respondents after an unexplained and undue delay of nearly 20 years and therefore, is not entitled to the claimed relief. In this regard, he places reliance on the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Kamlesh Sharma Vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. reported in 2009 WLC (Raj.) UC-126. He thus, prays that the writ petition should be dismissed on the ground of delay.
Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the [5] S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.7101/2006 LRs of Trilochan Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. bar and perused the material available on record.
From the facts narrated above, it is manifest that the right of the petitioner to claim the benefits of promotion in terms of the settlement dated 20.9.1985 is not disputed by the respondents. Earlier, the petitioner was ostensibly denied the said benefit for the reason of the alleged departmental punishment imposed upon him. It is not disputed that the departmental punishment was imposed on the petitioner much after the right of promotion fructified under the settlement. Thus, the departmental penalty could not have been a reason for denial of the benefit of promotion, which accrued to the petitioner earlier. The respondent Executive Engineer himself while recommending the petitioner's case for promotion vide communications (Annex.6 and 7) dated 31.8.2005 and 5.9.2005 has clearly mentioned that the petitioner's demand for promotion is justified. However, for reasons best known to the respondents, no consequential action pursuant to the recommendations (Annex.6 and 7) dated 31.8.2005 and 5.9.2005 was forthcoming. The Hon'ble Supreme Court examined the question of belated claim for enforcement of fundamental rights in the case of Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar (supra) and held that the principal on which the court proceeds in refusing relief to the petitioner on ground of laches or delay is that the rights, which have [6] S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.7101/2006 LRs of Trilochan Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. accrued to third parties by reason of the delay in filing the petition should not be allowed to be disturbed unless there is reasonable explanation for the delay.
In the case at hand, by extending the benefit of the settlement and consequent promotion to the petitioner, no third party rights would be created or disturbed because the petitioner does not claim seniority over anyone. The only claim of the petitioner by way of the instant writ petition is for the monetary benefits flowing from the two promotions to which he was entitled under the settlement. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bangalore City Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. reported in AIR 2012 SC 1395 held that where the facts disclose that the representation of the petitioner for withdrawal of his land from acquisition was under consideration even after the declaration under Section 6, the dismissal of petition on the ground of delay was improper. In the case at hand also, it is evident that the petitioner was agitating his claim with the respondents pursuant to the benefits being granted to Shri Mangi Lal and Shri Chhabi Singh. No sooner, these persons were given the benefits of the settlement, a ray of hope was definitely ignited in the petitioner's heart to pursue his claim for grant of promotion. He submitted representations and the respondents recommended his case for extending the benefits [7] S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.7101/2006 LRs of Trilochan Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. of promotion. In the case of Tarsem Singh (supra), the principal of continuing wrongs and recurring wrongs was explained and it was held that recurring/successive wrongs are those, which occur periodically, each wrong giving rise to a distinct and separate cause of action. If the benefit of promotion as per the settlement dated 20.9.1985 is granted to the petitioner, the post retiral benefits particularly, the family pension etc. would be affected every month and thus, it is a case of recurring wrong rather than a continuing wrong.
Thus, the petitioner's claim for the benefits of the settlement dated 20.9.1985 cannot be thrown out on the ground of delay. The judgment in the case of Kamlesh Sharma (supra), which was relied upon by the learned Dy.GC was a matter pertaining to claim of antedated promotion over others. Thus, it was definitely a matter involving a dispute wherein third party rights were likely to be affected and thus, the belated writ petition was rightly rejected. However, the said judgment has no application to the case at hand since no third party rights are likely to be created/affected if the relief as claimed in the petition is granted. The petitioner's case is covered by the observations made in Constitution Bench Judgment in Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar's case (supra).
As a consequence of the above discussion, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. It is hereby [8] S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.7101/2006 LRs of Trilochan Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. declared that the action of the respondents in failing to promote the petitioner as an Assistant Foreman and then a Foreman in terms of the settlement dated 20.9.1985 was unjust and contrary. He shall be extended the benefits of promotion in a similar fashion as was extended to Shri Mangi Lal and Shri Chhabi Singh vide order (Annex.5) dated 5.7.2005. The monetary benefits flowing from the above directions shall be paid to the petitioner's legal representatives.
No order as to costs.
(SANDEEP MEHTA), J.
/tarun/