Himachal Pradesh High Court
Dev Kumari (Since Deceased) Through vs Nhpc & Others on 4 July, 2016
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
SHIMLA
CWP No.1794 of 2009
.
Date of decision: 04.07.2016
Dev Kumari (since deceased) through ....Petitioners
her LRs Bal Krishan & Others.
Versus
NHPC & Others ....Respondents
of
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting ?1
rt Yes.
For the Petitioner: Mr.Dalip Sharma, Senior Advocate with
Mr.Manish Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr.K.D. Shreedhar, Senior Advocate
with Ms.Shreya Chauhan, Advocate.
Sandeep Sharma,J.
By way of present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has invoked the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court and has prayed for following reliefs:-
"(i) That a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued quashing the decision reflected in letter dated 24.5.2007, Annexure P-10/B and letter dated 8.4.2008, Annexure P-12 or any other decision on similar lines.
(ii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued against the respondents directing them to fix the pay of petitioner in the pay scale of Rs.8000-13400/- in IDA pattern with 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement?::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:45:27 :::HCHP 2
effect from 1.1.1997 and they may also be directed to consider the petitioner for promotion to the post of Senior PGT Grade-I in the pay scale of Rs.10750-16750 with effect from 1.7.1997 instead of 1.7.2004, with all .
consequential benefits.
(iii) Any other relief deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted to the petitioner.
(iv) The cost of the petition may also be awarded."
of
2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the case, as emerged from the record, are that the petitioner was appointed rt as Post Graduate Teacher (for short `PGT') in BSP Central School, Surangani, District Chamba, H.P. on 8.10.1984 on the Central DA Pattern/scale in the pay scale of Rs.550-900 (for short `CDA pattern'). However, fact remains that petitioner stands retired from the post of PGT, Senior Grade-I from the aforesaid School on 31.5.2008 on attaining the age of superannuation.
3. Averments contained in the writ petition suggest that as a result of revision of pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.1986, pay scale of Rs.550-900 was revised to Rs.1640-2900. Since teachers in the school mentioned above had no further avenue of promotion, they filed writ petition bearing CWP No.230 of 1987 before this Court. Respondents framed promotion policy pursuant to which teachers were to get selection grade/placement in higher pay scale on completion of 5 years/5 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:45:27 :::HCHP 3 years service. Accordingly, on the basis of aforesaid promotion policy petitioner was placed under the selection grade of Rs.2000-3500 w.e.f. 1.1.1990. Subsequently, pay scales were .
again revised w.e.f. 1.1996 vide office order dated 24.11.1997.
Careful perusal of office order dated 24.11.1997 suggests that pay scale of Rs.2000-3500, which was being held by petitioner since 1.1.1990 was revised to Rs.6500-10500. It also emerges of from the record that revised pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 w.e.f.
1.1.1996 was allowed to two categories i.e. S-3 (pre-revised rt Rs.2000-3200) and E-1 (Rs.6500-10500). As per petitioner, since the pre-revised pay scale of petitioner being Rs.2000-3500 was corresponding to E-1 (Executive Category), she was allowed the revised pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 w.e.f. 1.1.1996. Record further reveals that pursuant to clause 10 of Office Order No.3/2000, dated 19/21.1.2000, read with order No.PWA-471 dated 19/21.1.2000, option was granted to the petitioner alongwith other teachers to switch over from the Central DA pattern to Industrial DA pattern as respondents had not provided any avenues of promotion under CDA pattern, whereas there was a provision of promotion under Industrial DA pattern (for short `IDA pattern') as per provisions of policy which was adopted by the respondents from 1997. Petitioner, in terms of aforesaid option given by the respondents, exercised option of IDA pattern w.e.f. 2.7.1996 vide option letter submitted in June, ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:45:27 :::HCHP 4 2001, but fact remains that her option was accepted w.e.f.
1.1.1997 vide office order dated 6.9.2001. Thereafter, vide office order dated 25.9.2001 pay of the petitioner was fixed .
w.e.f. 1.1.1997 in the pay scale of Rs.6400-10000 in the IDA pattern. But as per petitioner that there was no scale of Rs.6400-10000 in IDA pattern for teachers category corresponding to Rs.6500-10500 under IDA pattern, as such, of she was entitled to be fixed in the pay scale of Rs.8000-13400, which infact was the pay scale in IDA pattern, corresponding to rt the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 in CDA pattern.
petitioner, the pay scale of Rs.2000-3500, which she was As per holding w.e.f. 1.1.1990, was the scale in fact admissible to E-I i.e. Executive Category, which was further revised to Rs.6500- 10500 w.e.f. 1.1.1996 under CDA pattern vide order dated 24.11.1997. Petitioner further averred that bare perusal of "Employee Hand Book" issued on 24.7.1998, clearly suggests that the corresponding pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 for S-3 (CDA pattern) was Rs.3500-6080 under IDA pattern, whereas corresponding pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 for E-I (CDA pattern) under IDA pattern was Rs.3700-7025. Petitioner further submitted that pay scale of Rs.3700-7025 (IDA pattern) was revised to Rs.8000-13400 for E-I w.e.f. 1.1.1997, whereas the pay scale of Rs.3500-6080 of S-3 under IDA pattern was revised to Rs.6400-10000. As per petitioner, it appears that the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:45:27 :::HCHP 5 respondents treated the petitioner holding pay scale under CDA pattern corresponding to S-3 and on that basis allowed her revised pay scale of Rs.6400-10000 on her opting for IDA .
pattern w.e.f. 1.1.1997. Petitioner has also submitted that since revised pay scale was granted to S-3 and E-1 w.e.f.
1.1.1996, respondents had no justification to hold that the petitioner was granted revised pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 w.e.f.
of 1.1.1996 because her pre-revised pay scale (Rs.2000-3500) corresponded with the category of E-1 and not S-3.
4. rt Pleadings made on behalf of the petitioner further reveal that vide order dated 30.12.2005, the petitioner was promoted as Senior Post Graduate Teacher (for short SPGT') Grade-II in the pay scale of Rs.8000-13400 w.e.f. 1.7.2004, whereas, at this stage, pay scale of Rs.8000-13400 was the corresponding revised pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 of CDA pattern. Petitioner was again promoted to the same pay scale which she was infact holding (pre-revised in CDA pattern) w.e.f.
1.1.1990. As per order dated 30.12.2005, petitioner was further promoted to the post of SPGT Grade-I in the pay scale of Rs.10750-16750 w.e.f. 1.7.2004.
5. In the aforesaid background, petitioner made repeated representations to the respondents to remove the aforesaid anomaly in her pay fixation in IDA pattern w.e.f.
1.1.1997. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid anomaly in ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:45:27 :::HCHP 6 her pay fixation in IDA pattern delayed her further promotion for more than 7 years, to the pay scale of Rs.10750-16750, which otherwise would have been granted to her w.e.f.
.
1.7.1997. However, it emerges from the record that despite repeated communications made on behalf of the petitioner, nothing concrete was done by the respondents to redress her grievance. Therefore, petitioner, under Right to Information Act, of procured certain information, which suggest that respondents had forwarded the case of the petitioner for revised pay fixation rt to the authorities but authorities clarified that, "while fixing their pay on switchover from CDA to IDA with effect from 1.1.1997, the scale given to them is Rs.6400-180-10000 now revised to Rs.9300-3.5%-15990 may be incorrect, as there is no such scale in the line of promotion under IDA scales of PGT."
Further perusal of letter dated 18.3.2006 suggests that matter regarding anomaly in pay fixation/promotion of petitioner was again forwarded to the authorities by Deputy Manager, HR, office of Executive Director, Region-II, Banikhet, Chamba, recommending the case of the petitioner. Careful perusal of the aforesaid letter suggests that the authority specifically pointed out that, on a scrutiny of records available in this office it has been found that the facts presented by Miss Sharma are correct and they are furnishing the detail of complete case."
Thereafter, petitioner, by way of repeated representations, ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:45:27 :::HCHP 7 requested the respondents to redress her grievance. However, vide communication dated 8.4.2008, respondents informed the petitioner that on her opting IDA pattern/pay scale w.e.f.
.
1.1.1997 and on implementation of Revised Promotion Policy for teaching staff, she was promoted as SPGT Grade-II w.e.f.
1.7.1997 and SPGT Grad-I w.e.f. 1.7.2004 by counting the grade of PGT and PGT(SG) together. The aforesaid letter was of issued to the petitioner after her retirement on 31.5.2008.
Since, petitioner was not satisfied with the decision taken by rt the respondents on her representations, approached this Court by way of instant writ petition praying therein for the reliefs which have been reproduced above.
6. Pursuant to the notices issued to the respondents, they filed detailed reply to the writ petition. Respondents specifically took the objections with regard to delay and latches.
As per respondents, cause of action, if any, accrued to the petitioner on 25.9.2001 and as such any petition, at this belated stage i.e. after 8 years, cannot be accepted and same deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches.
Respondents also stated that repeated representations will not extend the cause of action or confer a new cause of action and as such the petition being time barred deserves to be dismissed.
7. On merits also, respondents refuted all the averments made by the petitioner being baseless. Respondents ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:45:27 :::HCHP 8 stated in their reply that the employees working with the respondents-Corporation are classified in three categories i.e. Executive, Supervisory and Workmen. So far as teaching staff .
is concerned, separate recruitment/promotion policy has been framed i.e. Annexure R-2. The PGTs fall in supervisory category (Annexure R-3). Similarly, vide office order No.23/90, dated 1.7.1990 (Annexure R-6) suggests that PGTs are included in of supervisory category in Annexure-I of the said order. As per respondents, PGTs fall in the pay scale of Rs.550-900. The rt selection grade corresponding to the said post was Rs.650-1200 at the relevant time. The scale of Rs.650-1200 was later on revised to Rs.2000-3200, which is a part of Annexure R-6.
Respondents also placed on record the chart showing the revised pay scales w.e.f. various dates i.e. Annexure R-5. As per respondents, it is clear from the perusal of the chart that the pay scale of Rs.650-1200 with respect to S-3 Grade was revised to Rs.2000-3200 and not Rs.2000-3500. Since, petitioner falls in supervisory category and was in S-3 Grade at the relevant point of time i.e. at the time of adoption of IDA pay scales after switching over from CDA pay scales, pay scale of Rs.2000-3500 in E-1 Grade was not applicable to the petitioner, whereas, it was for the E-1 category on promotion in the Executive Category. Respondents also averred that as per recommendations of High Power Pay Committee, it was decided ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:45:27 :::HCHP 9 to revise the pay scale and allowances consequent to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court and so far as the category of PGT was concerned, the pay scale was revised to Rs.2000- .
3500, which was a personal pay scale, as evident from office order dated 10.71990 (Annexure R-6). Careful perusal of Annexure R-6 suggests that the personal pay scale of Rs.2000- 3500 was to be granted to PGT(SG) as per this office order. The of personal pay was granted to the employees with the adoption of revised pay scale as indicated in Clause-4.1 of Annexure-I of the rt Annexure R-6 to avoid hardship to them. Accordingly, the petitioner was placed in the selection grade in the personal pay scale of Rs.2000-3500 w.e.f. 1.1.1990 vide office order dated 25.1.1999. Respondents further submitted that office order dated 10.7.1997 vide which revised promotion policy for workmen, teaching and para-medical staff was circulated clearly suggests that line of promotion for teaching staff is in IDA pay pattern. So far as PGTs are concerned, they have two channels of promotion i.e. SPGT Grade-II and SPGT Grade-I. As per respondents, petitioner was not in Executive Cadre Grade on the day of exercising her option and she belonged to S-3 in supervisory category and accordingly she was rightly placed in IDA pay scale corresponding to Rs.6400-10000 as per office order dated 21.1.2000. As per respondents, keeping in view the option exercised by the petitioner, pay scale of petitioner was ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:45:27 :::HCHP 10 fixed at IDA pay scale of Rs.6400-10000 w.e.f. 1.1.1997.
According to the respondents IDA pay scale of Rs.6400-10000 was further revised to Rs.9300-15590 w.e.f. 1.1.1997 vide office .
order dated 14.12.2001, which in turn modified the earlier office order dated 21.1.2000. As per respondents, pay of the petitioner was fixed in the pay scale of Rs.9300-15590 vide office order dated 3.4.2002 in S-3 Grade and thereafter she was of promoted as SPGT Grade-II w.e.f. 1.7.1997 and subsequent to that as SPGT Grade-I w.e.f. 1.7.2004 in terms of promotion rt policy corresponding to IDA pay pattern. In last respondents, termed the decision of the petitioner to challenge the action of the respondents of fixation of pay scale is based upon mis-
apprehension and non-clarity of facts and as such prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
8. Shri Dalip Sharma, learned Senior Counsel, representing the petitioner vehemently argued that decision contained in order dated 8.4.2008 issued by the respondents is not based upon the correct appreciation of the facts on record.
He forcefully contended that respondents have not dealt with the representations repeatedly filed by the petitioners correctly and merely vide order dated 8.4.2008 reiterated the decision earlier taken by them on the representation of the petitioner.
As per Mr.Sharma, pay scale of Rs.2000-3500, which the petitioner was holding w.e.f. 1.1.1990, was the scale in fact ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:45:27 :::HCHP 11 admissible to E-1 (Executive category), which was further revised to Rs.6500-10500 w.e.f. 1.1.1996 under CDA pattern vide order dated 23.11.1997. There was no pay scale of .
Rs.2000-3500 in supervisor category and as a matter of fact S-3 carried the pay scale of Rs.2000-3200 which was also revised to Rs.6500-10500 w.e.f. 1.1.1996 i.e. S-3 to E-1 were granted same revised pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 (CDA pattern) w.e.f.
of 1.1.1996.
9. During arguments having been made by rt Mr.Sharma, he invited the attention of this Court to "Employee Hand Book" issued on 24.7.1998 (Annexure P-5) to demonstrate that the corresponding pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 for S-3 (CDA pattern) was Rs.3500-6080 under IDA pattern, whereas corresponding pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 for E-1 (CDA pattern) under IDA patern was Rs.3700-7025. He strenuously argued that the pay scale of Rs.3700-7025 (IDA pattern) was revised to Rs.8000-13400 for E-1 w.e.f. 1.1.1997, whereas the pay scale of Rs.3500-6080 of S-3 under IDA pattern was revised to Rs.6400-10000. It is also contended on behalf of the petitioner that the respondents treated the petitioner holding pay scale under CDA pattern corresponding to S-3, and on that basis allowed her revised pay scale of Rs.6400-10000 on opting for IDA pattern w.e.f. 1.1.1997. Mr.Sharma contended that since revised pay scale was granted to S-3 and E-1 w.e.f.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:45:27 :::HCHP 121.1.1996, respondent had no justification to hold that the petitioner was granted revised pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 w.e.f.
1.1.1996 because her pre-revised pay scale (Rs.2000-3500) .
corresponded with the category of E-1 and not S-3.
10. Mr. Sharma forcefully contended that the petitioner is entitled to revised pay scale in IDA pattern inconsonance with her pre-revised pay scale of Rs.2000-3500/- before 1.1.1996, in of view of the fact that she was getting re-revised pay scale at par with E-1 before 1.1.1996. Mr.Sharma also contended that IDA rt pattern of pay scales was given to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.1997 after exercising option by her which was accepted vide order dated 6.9.2001 and thereafter promotions were granted to her to the post of SPGT Grade-II and SPGT Grade-I w.e.f. 1.7.1997 and 30.12.2005 respectively.
11. It is also contended on behalf of the petitioner that the matter relating to switching over to IDA pattern was implemented at a much belated stage and thereafter anomalies arose in implementation of the same and as such a clarification was issued on 25.1.2007, wherein it was clarified that revised/modified pay scales on or after 1.1.1997 were to be allowed to teaching staff as per pay scales held by them prior to 1.1.1997 in comparison to Executives/Supervisors etc. and as such, genuine grievance of the petitioner has not been appreciated in its right perspective by the respondents and as ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:45:27 :::HCHP 13 such plea of delay and latches, if any, cannot be allowed to raised at this stage by the respondent to resist the rightful claim of the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner was .
entitled to be fixed in the pay scale of Rs.8000-13400 w.e.f.
1.1.1997 on conversion of her CDA pay scale of Rs.6500-10500.
12. Mr.Sharma contended that had the petitioner granted aforesaid pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.1997 on conversion of her of CDA pay scale of Rs.6500-10500, she would have been promoted w.e.f. 1.7.1997 to the next pay scale of Rs.10750- rt 16750, which was otherwise delayed by more than 7 years by granting her a lower pay scale of Rs.6400-10000 w.e.f.
1.1.1997. He also contended on behalf of the petitioner that the service of the petitioner from 1.1.1990 in the pay scale of Rs.2000-3500, revised to Rs.6500-10500 w.e.f. 1.1.1996 in CDA pattern and which would have entitled her to corresponding scale of Rs.8000-13400 under IDA pattern from 1.1.1997 till her next promotion on 1.7.1997, as such, more than 7 years have been wiped out and petitioner has been promoted twice in the same pay scale. Mr.Sharma, while addressing the arguments, made this Court to travel through the grounds of the writ petition to demonstrate that how the petitioner has been discriminated vis-à-vis other TGTs who were treated favorably.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:45:27 :::HCHP 1413. Mr.K.D. Shreedhar, learned Senior Counsel, representing the respondents, vehemently opposed the arguments having been made by the learned Senior Counsel .
representing the petitioner. Mr.Shreedhar forcefully contended that the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed solely on the ground of delay and latches. It is contended that cause of action, if any, accrued to the petitioner on 25.9.2001 and as of such, by way of present petition, petitioner cannot be allowed to rake up the issue which stands settled on 25.9.2001.
rt Mr.Shreedhar contended that the petitioner falls in the supervisor category since she was in S-3 Grade at the relevant point of time i.e. at the time of deputation of IDA pay scales after switching over from CDA pay scales. Pay scale of Rs.650- 1200 with respect to S-3 Grade was revised to Rs.2000-3200 and not Rs.2000-3500 as is being projected by the petitioner.
Mr.Shreedhar forcefully contended that the contention of the petitioner that her pay scale was Rs.2000-3500 in E-1 Grade and accordingly she is entitled to next revision/promotion to the executive category, is not permissible/tenable, especially in view the fact that she falls in supervisory category and was in S-
3 Grade at the relevant point of time i.e. at the time of adoption of IDA scales. Since the petitioner was not in Executive Cadre Grade on the day of exercising her option (and belonged to S-3) in supervisory category, she was to be placed in IDA pay scale ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:45:27 :::HCHP 15 corresponding to Rs.6400-10000 as per Office Order dated 21.01.2000, accordingly vide order dated 25.9.2001 pay of the petitioner was rightly fixed to IDA pay scale of Rs.6400-10000 .
w.e.f. 1.1.1997. He stated that no prejudice, whatsoever, has been caused to the petitioner, rather she was promoted as SPGT Grade-II w.e.f. 1.7.1997, thereafter she was again promoted to the post of SPGT Grade-I in terms of the promotion policy of corresponding to IDA pattern. In the last, Mr.Shreedhar, contended that averments contained in the petition are based rt upon the mis-apprehension and non-clarity of facts and as such petition deserves to be dismissed.
14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.
15. Careful perusal of the pleadings on record suggests that petitioner, being aggrieved with the decision contained in letters dated 24.5.2007 (Annexure-P-10/B) and 8.4.2008 (Annexure P-12), approached this Court seeking reliefs, as have been reproduced above. After traversing through Annexure P-
12, it clearly emerges that respondents passed these orders on the representations filed by the present petitioner, wherein it is clarified that the petitioner (PGT) was placed in PGT(SG) w.e.f.
1.1.1990 in CDA pay scale of Rs.2000-3500, but due to non-
availability of LOP in the CDA scale of pay, she remained in the same grade till 30.6.1997. Subsequently, on her opting IDA pay ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:45:27 :::HCHP 16 scale w.e.f. 1.1.1997 and on implementation of Revised Promotion Policy, for teaching Staff, she was promoted as SPGT Grade-II w.e.f. 1.7.1997 and SPGT Grade-I w.e.f. 1.7.2004 by .
counting the grade of PGT and PGT(SG) together. The aforesaid decision contained in Annexure P-10/B and Annexure P-12 were taken on 24.5.2007 and 8.4.2008 respectively.
Admittedly, the present petition assailing therein the aforesaid of letters were filed on 12.5.2009 i.e. exactly after 2 years of passing of impugned orders mentioned above. Moreover, cause rt of action, if any, accrued to the petitioner on 6.9.2001, when option exercised by the petitioner to switchover from CDA to IDA pattern in terms of clause 10 of office order No.3/2000, dated 19/21.1.2000 read with order No.PWA-471 dated 19/21.1.2000, was accepted, because admittedly, in view of the option as referred above, petitioner was placed at corresponding pay scale of Rs.6400-10000 in terms of order dated 21.1.2000.
Subsequently, vide order dated 25.1.2007 (Annexure P-10/A), CDA pay scale was allowed w.e.f. 1.1.1997. Basically, cause of action, if any, has accrued to the petitioner on 6.9.2001, when her option to switchover to CDA from IDA pattern was accepted and she was placed in IDA pattern pay scale corresponding to pay scale of Rs.6400-10000 w.e.f. 1.1.1997. But admittedly present writ petition has been filed in 2009 i.e. after 8 years of issuance of office order dated 6.9.2001 (Annexure P-3) and as ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:45:27 :::HCHP 17 such there is inordinate delay in laying challenge, if any, to the same in the competent Court of law.
16. Moreover, this Court, while going through the .
pleadings of the parties, was unable to lay its hand to any explanation worth the name rendered by petitioner with regard to delay in filing the present petition. Though, respondents, by making specific averments with regard to the repeated of representations having been made by her, have attempted to render some explanation to the delay in maintaining the present writ rt petition. But, it is a settled law that representations do not give any limitation and rather petitioner repeated was expected to approach the Court within a reasonable time after issuance of order dated 25.9.2001. Since the petition is hopelessly time barred and no explanation worth the name has been rendered in the petition for filing the same after long delay, this petition deserves to be rejected on the ground of delay and latches, moreover, petitioner has retired from service during the pendency of the petition.
17. In this regard reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Uttranchal and another vs. Sri Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari and others, 2013(6) SLR 629 (SC), wherein the Court held as under:-
"13. We have no trace of doubt that the respondents could have challenged the ad hoc promotion conferred on the junior employee at ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:45:27 :::HCHP 18 the relevant time. They chose not to do so for six years and the junior employee held the promotional post for six years till regular promotion took place. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondents is that they .
had given representations at the relevant time but the same fell in deaf ears. It is interesting to note that when the regular selection took place, they accepted the position solely because the seniority was maintained and, thereafter, they knocked at the doors of the tribunal only in 2003. It is clear as noon day that the cause of action had arisen for assailing the order when the junior employee was promoted on ad hoc basis on 15.11.1983. In C. Jacob v. Director of of Geology and Mining and another, (2008)10 SCC 115: [2009(1) SLR 638 (SC)], a two-Judge Bench was dealing with the concept of representations and the directions issued by the court or tribunal to consider the representations and the rt challenge to the said rejection thereafter. In that context, the court has expressed thus: -
"Every representation to the Government for relief, may not be replied on merits. Representations relating to matters which have become stale or barred by limitation, can be rejected on that ground alone, without examining the merits of the claim. In regard to representations unrelated to the Department, the reply may be only to inform that the matter did not concern the Department or to inform the appropriate Department. Representations with incomplete particulars may be replied by seeking relevant particulars. The replies to such representations, cannot furnish a fresh cause of action or revive a stale or dead claim."
14. In Union of India and others v. M.K. Sarkar, (2010)2 SCC 59: [2009(6) SLR 756 (SC)], this Court, after referring to C. Jacob (supra) has ruled that when a belated representation in regard to a "stale" or "dead" issue/dispute is considered and decided, in compliance with a direction by the court/tribunal to do so, the date of such decision cannot be considered as furnishing a fresh cause of action for reviving the "dead" issue or time-barred dispute. The issue of limitation or delay and laches should be considered with reference to the original cause of action and not with reference to the date on which an order is passed in compliance with a ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:45:27 :::HCHP 19 court's direction. Neither a court's direction to consider a representation issued without examining the merits, nor a decision given in compliance with such direction, will extend the limitation, or erase the delay and laches.
.
15. From the aforesaid authorities it is clear as crystal that even if the court or tribunal directs for consideration of representations relating to a stale claim or dead grievance it does not give rise to a fresh cause of action. The dead cause of action cannot rise like a phoenix. Similarly, a mere submission of representation to the competent authority does not arrest time. In Karnataka Power Corpn. Ltd. through its of Chairman & Managing Director v. K. Thangappan and another, (2006)4 SCC 322:
[2006(3) SLR 27 (SC)], the Court took note of the factual position and laid down that when nearly for two decades the respondent-workmen therein rt had remained silent mere making of representations could not justify a belated approach.
16. In State of Orissa v. Pyarimohan Samantaray, (1977) 3 SCC 396 : [1977(1) SLR 255 (SC)] it has been opined that making of repeated representations is not a satisfactory explanation of delay. The said principle was reiterated in State of Orissa v. Arun Kumar Patnaik, (1976)3 SCC 579.
17. In Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v.
Ghanshyam Dass (2) and others, (2011)4 SCC 374: [2012(4) SLR 711 (SC)], a three-Judge Bench of this Court reiterated the principle stated in Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana, (1977)6 SCC 538 and proceeded to observe that as the respondents therein preferred to sleep over their rights and approached the tribunal in 1997, they would not get the benefit of the order dated 7.7.1992.
18. In State of T.N. v. Seshachalam, (2007) 10 SCC 137, this Court, testing the equality clause on the bedrock of delay and laches pertaining to grant of service benefit, has ruled thus: -
"....filing of representations alone would not save the period of limitation. Delay or laches is a relevant factor for a court of law to determine the question as to whether the claim made by an ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:45:27 :::HCHP 20 applicant deserves consideration. Delay and/or laches on the part of a government servant may deprive him of the benefit which had been given to others. Article 14 of the Constitution of India would not, in a situation of that nature, be .
attracted as it is well known that law leans in favour of those who are alert and vigilant."
19. There can be no cavil over the fact that the claim of promotion is based on the concept of equality and equitability, but the said relief has to be claimed within a reasonable time. The said principle has been stated in Ghulam Rasool Lone v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and another, (2009) 15 SCC 321 : [2009(5) SLR 449 (SC)].
of
20. In New Delhi Municipal Council v. Pan Singh and others, (2007)9 SCC 278: [2007(2) SLR 860 (SC)], the Court has opined that though there is no period of limitation provided for filing a writ rt petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, yet ordinarily a writ petition should be filed within a reasonable time. In the said case the respondents had filed the writ petition after seventeen years and the court, as stated earlier, took note of the delay and laches as relevant factors and set aside the order passed by the High Court which had exercised the discretionary jurisdiction.
21. Presently, sitting in a time machine, we may refer to a two-Judge Bench decision in P.S. Sadasivasway v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1975)1 SCC 152 : [1976(1) SLR 53 (SC)], wherein it has been laid down that a person aggrieved by an order of promoting a junior over his head should approach the Court at least within six months or at the most a year of such promotion. It is not that there is any period of limitation for the Courts to exercise their powers under Article 226 nor is it that there can never be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in a matter after the passage of a certain length of time, but it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the Courts to refuse to exercise their extraordinary powers under Article 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the Court to put forward stale claims and try to unsettle settled matters."
(pp.633-635) ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:45:27 :::HCHP 21
18. As far as merit of the petition is concerned, it emerges from the record that employees, working in the respondents-Corporation, are classified in three categories i.e. .
Executive, Supervisory and Workmen. As far as teaching Staff is concerned, separate R&P Policy has been framed, wherein PGTs fall in the supervisory category and vide letter dated 10.8.1996, employees falling under the category of PGTs are of classified as supervisor category (Annexure-R3). Similarly, petitioner is appointed as PGT on 8.10.1984. At that time, she rt was placed in the pay scale of Rs.550-900 on the CDA Pattern.
Further her pay was revised w.e.f. 1.1.1986. Selection grade corresponding to the aforesaid post was of Rs.650-1200 at that relevant time which fact stands proved after pursuing Annexure-R2. The scale of Rs.650-1200 was lateron revised to Rs.2000-3200. It also emerges from the record that pay scale of Rs.650-1200 with respect to S-3 Grade was revised to Rs.2000- 3200 and not to Rs.2000-3500, as is being claimed by the petitioner.
19. In the present case, the claim of the petitioner is that her pay scale of Rs.2000-3500 was in E-1 Grade and as such she should have been promoted in the Executive category, but fact remains that petitioner belonged to Supervisor category and was in S-3 Grade at the time of adoption of IDA pattern/scales. Moreover, petitioner submitted her option to ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:45:27 :::HCHP 22 switchover to IDA pattern/scales on 29.8.2001 to avail the benefits of the revised promotion policy for workmen, teaching and paramedical staff. Since the petitioner was not in .
Executive Cadre Grade on the day of exercising her option (and belonged to S-3) in Supervisory category, she could be only placed in IDA pay scales corresponding to Rs.6400-10000 and as such vide order dated 25.9.2001, her pay was rightly fixed in of IDA pay scale of Rs.6400-10000 w.e.f. 1.1.1997. Moreover, IDA pay scale of Rs.6400-10000 was further revised to Rs.9300- rt 15590 w.e.f. 1.1.1997, as a result whereof, pay of the petitioner was fixed in the pay scale of Rs.9300-15590 in S-3 Grade and thereafter, she was promoted as SPGT Grade-II w.e.f. 1.7.1997.
But, lateron, she was given another promotion as SPGT Grade-I w.e.f. 1.7.2004 in terms of promotion policy corresponding to IDA pattern.
20. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court sees no illegality, whatsoever, in the impugned orders passed by the respondents. Rather it appears that claim of the petitioner is based upon mis-apprehension and imagination and same deserves to be rejected out rightly.
Moreover, since there is inordinate delay in filing the present writ petition by the petitioner and no explanation worth the name has been rendered in the writ petition explaining the delay, this Court sees no reasons, whatsoever, to invoke its ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:45:27 :::HCHP 23 extraordinary jurisdiction for the grant of reliefs as prayed for in the petition, accordingly, present petition is dismissed being devoid of merits as well as hopelessly time barred. The present .
petition is dismissed.
21. Interim direction, if any, is vacated. All miscellaneous applications are disposed of.
of
July 4, 2016 (Sandeep Sharma)
(aks) Judge
rt
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:45:27 :::HCHP