Awadhram Tandon v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.

16. Firan Sai, Superintendent Land Records, Ambikapur (C.G ) T^»t><^.C>^t«-<^v- t-nn4"a'=t-t-^n4ir; ^mb) k.^w.r' C^. • Gn^) 17. Tilakram Netam, Superintendent Land ''^ Records, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) IS.Awadesh PrasadSai, Superintendent Land Records, Dantewara (C.G.) WRIT APPEAL U/S 2(1) OF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH) ACT,2006. @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DB: HON'BLE MR. ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE & HON'BLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA. JJ. WritADpealNo.298/12 APPELLANT Awadhram Tandon Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and others WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2 (11 OF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCHl ACT. 2006 Present: Shri Ashok Dubey, counsel for the appellant. Shri A.S. Kacchawaha, Deputy Advocate General for the State / respondents. ORDER (Passfed on 11th of May, 2012) The following Court was passed by Manindra Mohan Shrivastava. J- Heard on admission.

2. Thiswritappeal is directed against order dated 26/3/12 passed in W.P.No.996/04. t

3. This writ appeal is filed by the writ petitioner seeking issuance of direction to respondents for grant of seniority with all consequential promotional benefits by virtue of appointment of the appellant on the post of Assistant Superintendant Land !/ Records (ASLR) vide order of appointment dated 25/01/93. "^l ; The appellant preferred representation to the State Government on 22/12/03, 14/01/04 followed by representation dated 12/2/04 claiming seniority over and above ASLRs, who according to the appellant were junior and were promoted vide order dated 30/10/98. According to the appellant, he was entitled to be given seniority in accordance with the selectlist irrespective of the date of issuance of order of appointment / date ofjoining as mentioned in the orderof appointment dated 2/2/93 (Annexure P/1). It is, therefore, the case of the appellant that the appellant was not only entitled to be given seniority over and above his juniors but promotion from due date as was illegally deprived of promotion in the year 1998.

4. In the writ petition, the learned single judge has taken into consideration the statutory provisions contained in Rule 12 the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961 (for short 'the Rules of 1961') and the * judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash Shrivastava v. State of Madhva Pradesh and another. 2005 (111 SCC 488 in the light of the pleadings and facts placed before the Court and has recorded finding that the necessary facts for determination of the issue with regard to seniority have not been brought to the notice ofthe Court and for want of such necessary facts, is difficult to decide as to what was the decision taken by the authorities while granting seniority to the appellant. Moreover;'the learned single judge has dismissed 1'^^ I.,, '^!! :°^ the petition on the ground that the claim of seniority has been raised after long and unexplained delay of seven years and the petitioner has not satisfactorily explained inordinate del^y and laches. In addition, the ground of non-impleadment of other employees who may be affected by change of seniority as well as claim for promotion has also been taken into consideration.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended before us in this appeal that the appointment order clearly stated that the seniority has to be determined on the basis of the merit list and not on the basis of date of order of appointment / date of joining,therefore, the appellant was entitled to grant of appropriate seniority by issuance of direction in that regard to the respondents. Learned counsel also urged that as far as delay is concerned, the same has been properl^ explained in paragraphs 5.3 and 5.4 of fhe writ petition, which has not been properly appreciated. It is lastly submitted that as far as impleadment of affected employees is concerned, though the appellant had impleaded those employees who were likely to be affected, in the event, seniority is changed, considering that many of them had retired, the petitioner had moved application for deleting the names of those private responden.ts and he was permitted to do so vide order dated 30/01/12.

6. After going through the contents of the writ petition, averments made therein, we are unable to accept contention of learned counsel for the appellant that he was ^.M^ ..-•^ ^ entitled to grant of seniority in view of the terms and conditions of the appointment order. The learned single judge has taken into consideration the effect and impact of Rule 12(1)(f) of the Rules of 1961 in the event of extension of period bf probation in reckoning seniority that in such case, the appointing authority shall determine whether he should be assigned the same seniority, as would have been assigned to him if he had completed the normal period of probation testing period successfully, or whether he should be assigned a lower seniority, keeping in view the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash Shrivastava (Supra)»wherein, Rule, as applicable in the present case fell for consideration. Spedfic finding has been recorded that proper and necessary material and factual aspect to decide the aforesaid issue have notbeen placed before the Court. Learned single judge has also recorded that no material has been produced for any decision, which might have been taken by the authorities. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the finding recorded bythelearned singlejudge in that regard.

7. Taking into consideration the plethora of decisions and settled legal position, the learned single judge has also found that there has been delay of seven years and the petitioner has failed to explain the inordinate delay. The submission that several representations have been made, does not help the appellant as it is too well settled legal position •<that repeated v' fe. ' /u.f^.'^ 1 1 representations, itself, do not constitute satisfactory explanation. We also have gone through the pleadings made in the writ petition particularly in paragraphs 5.3 and 5.4and do not find that there was any satisfactory explanation offered. In cases relating to claim of seniority, the employee is expected to be vigilant and approach the Court without undue delay, diligently and promptly. It is clear and admitted position that though the appellant was appointed in the year 1993 and employees claiming to be junior were promoted in the year 1998 but the appellant remained indolent for a long timeand slept over the matter until he preferred representation for the first time inthe year2003. Therefore, by the writ petition,the appellant has sought to raise the issue with regard to seniority which is ten years after the appointment of the appellant i.e. after inordinate delay. Therefore, on that ground alone, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed and has been dismissed by the learned single judge.

8. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to admit this writ appeal. The appeal being sans merit is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly summarily dismissed without notice to the other party. Sd/- Abhay Manohar Sapre Judge Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Deepti