Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dinesh Kumar Mishra vs Bhakra Beas Management Board And Others on 16 August, 2012
Author: Rajiv Narain Raina
Bench: Hemant Gupta, Rajiv Narain Raina
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
L.P.A. No.400 of 2012 in
Civil Writ Petition No.18582 of 2009
Date of Decision:16.8.2012
Dinesh Kumar Mishra ......Appellant(s)
Versus
Bhakra Beas Management Board and others ......Respondent(s)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
***
Present: Mr. J.S. Maanipur, Advocate for the appellant.
****
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
****
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.
This is Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.1.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition on the ground of delay.
The brief facts necessary for a decision in the appeal are that in Bhakra Beas Management Board (for short "BBMB") there are various divisions including Irrigation and Power Wing. The conditions of service of the petitioner and the 4th respondent were earlier regulated by service rules called the Bhakra Beas Management Board Class III & IV Employees (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1994 (for short the "1994 Regulations"). The hierarchy of promotion from the post of Steno Typist is to that of Junior Scale Stenographer and then from Junior Scale Stenographer to Senior Scale Stenographer and then to Personal Assistant. Regulation 3 of Regulations 1994 lays down the general conditions of employment and all the wings of the board were integrated into a single cadre according to similar category. Regulation 4 deals with mode of appointment which is to be made in the manner specified in the L.P.A. No.400 of 2012 -2- Appendix-A. Regulation 4(5) of the Regulations deals with the principle of appointment by promotion which was required to be made by selection based on seniority-cum-merit and no employee would be entitled to promotion as of right.
The appellant was appointed as a Steno Typist on 14.12.1982 in the Power Wing whilst the 4th respondent joined the Irrigation Wing later on 10.3.1989. The 4th respondent was promoted as Junior Scale Stenographer on 27.12.2000 and still further to the next higher post on 9.9.2003 in the Irrigation Wing. The 1994 Regulations were amended w.e.f. 17.10.2002 by virtue of promulgation of the Bhakra Beas Management Board Class III and IV Employees' (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Amendment Regulations, 2002 (For short "2002 Regulations"). The material change brought about was that the integrated cadre prior to amendment was split into separate cadres according to the wing i.e. Power Wing and Irrigation Wing etc. Earlier the appellant belonged to the Power Wing and the 4th respondent to the Irrigation Wing. In the new dispensation by the amendment of the regulations in 2002, the respective cadres of different wings came to be maintained under the respective administrative control of the Chief Engineers of different wings. However, the fact remains that the 4th respondent had secured promotion in the year 2000 as Junior Scale Stenographer and in the tentative seniority list circulated on 20.6.2002 the 4th respondent's promotion as Junior Scale Stenographer was duly reflected.
Admittedly, the appellant filed successive representations before and after the amendment to the regulations (Annexures P-4 to P-7) and then slept till 2006 when he again awakened and set off a series of representations again for the next three years till the institution of the writ in L.P.A. No.400 of 2012 -3- 2009. The appellant made no effort to approach the Court for redressing his grievances and let the 4th respondent secure further promotion in his separate wing. The cause of action appears to have accrued in favour of the appellant when he was first passed over in 2000, thereafter on 10.7.2002 when the tentative seniority list was finalized. It is not disputed that the appellant did not file objections to the tentative seniority list.
Learned Single Judge may have found justification in the appellant's grievance claiming promotion from the date when the erstwhile junior was promoted from the integrated seniority list; or that the 1994 Regulations could not have been changed merely on administrative instructions or by orders issued by the Chief Engineers of the respective wings but the appellant was non suited on delay, laches and operation of bar of period of limitation. In a matter of promotion based on seniority, the delay of 7 or 9 years can be regarded as fatal. Learned Single Judge has relied upon M.P. Palanisamy v. A. Krishnan 2009 (6) SCC 428 and K.A. Abdul Majeed v. State of Kerala 2001(6) SCC 292 to deny relief to the appellant on ground of delay.
We have heard Mr. J.S. Maanipur for the appellant at some length but are unable to be persuaded by him to examine the merits of the case for possible violation of the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution in the face of bar of limitation. Had the petitioner brought a Civil Suit in 2009 with prayers similar to the ones made in the present case, it would have been barred by limitation. Still further, successive representations have been held not to create a cause of action for which principle reference may be had to S.S. Rathore vs. State of M.P. AIR 1990 SC 10. Delay in the present case would not revive the cause of action and cause injury to the 4th respondent L.P.A. No.400 of 2012 -4- by unsettling a position which had remained settled for at least 7 years. Reference may be had to the observations of the Supreme Court in Kanda Swami AIR 1974 SC.
Without expressing any opinion on the effect of amended Regulations 2002 and leaving it open to be decided in an appropriate case, we would dismiss this appeal on the grounds of delay and laches by holding that part of the order of the learned Single Judge.
( HEMANT GUPTA ) ( RAJIV NARAIN RAINA )
JUDGE JUDGE
16.8.2012
rajeev