Judgment · High Court

Heard Ms. J. Huda, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned State Counsel. This writ petition was filed in the year 2008 with the following prayer. (cid:28)It is therefore prayed that Your Lordships may be pleased to ad mit this petition, call for the records, and issue a rule calling upon the respo ndents to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or Certiorar i shall not be issued directing the respondents to correct the seniority positio n of the petitioner and to considers the case of promotion of the petitioner and /or pass necessary order or orders as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper. (cid:29) The petitioner filed the writ petition on 23.5.2008 after his re tirement from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 28.2.2008. This date of retirement from service is taken from the list of dates submitted by the petitioner. However, referring to the statements made in paragraph 15 of the wr it petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the actual date of retirement from service of the petitioner is February, 2009. If the date of retirement of the petitioner from service is taken to be February, 2009 then the writ petition was filed a few months before his retirement. While entertaining the writ petition by order dated 11.6.2009, t he question of delay in filing the writ petition was kept open to be decided at the time of hearing. Shortly stated the facts leading to filing of the instant writ p etition are that the petitioner, who is a diploma holder in Civil Engineering wa s appointed under the respondents on 26.4.1973 as Sub-Engineer, which was later on redesignated as Junior Engineer. A seniority list of Sub-Engineer/Junior Engi neer was published on 6.1.1984, in which the name of the petitioner appeared at serial No. 31. The grievance of the petitioner started when some Sub-Engineer we re promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer in the year 1987. Although the pet itioner was aggrieved by his non-promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer and he was allegedly superceded atleast by one Sub-Engineer, except making a repres entation in 1987 he did nothing towards redressal of his grievance and kept on w aiting. The petitioner was also promoted to the post of Assistant Engine er in the year 1991. Long 15 years thereafter, when the seniority list of Assist ant Engineers was published on 25.5.2006, the petitioner made the Annexure-D rep resentation dated 1.6.2006 stating that in the said list his position should hav e been above some of his colleagues. The fact of the matter is that as against t he promotion of his colleagues in the year 1987, the petitioner was promoted in the year 1991 and thus naturally in the seniority list published in 2006, the sa id colleagues ranked senior to him. After making the said representation dated 1.6.2006, the petitio ner again kept on waiting. Thereafter filed the instant writ petition on the dat e aforementioned. As to what is the prayer of the petitioner is indicated above. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, it has been st ated that there was allegation of tempering of official records against the peti tioner while he was posted at Diphu as Junior Engineer. Moreover, there were cas es of Chief Minister’s Vigilance Cell against the petitioner during that relevan t period of time. As regards filing of representation in 1987, the respondents h ave denied the same. Further, although the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Engineer on 19.12.1991, but he joined the promotional post on 8.5.1992. As regar ds the fixation of seniority, it has been stated that the same was done as per t he provisions of Rule 22 of the Assam Public Health Engineering Service Rules, 1 996. Dealing with the case of promotion of the petitioner vis-à-vis his colleagu es, it has been stated that while considering the promotion cases, confidential report and other service documents were taken into consideration and consequentl y promotions were affected in 1987 and the petitioner could be promoted only in the year 1991. If the prayer of the petitioner is to be allowed directing the r espondents to re-consider his case for promotion with effect from the date when his colleagues were promoted in 1987, same will unsettle a settled position, set tled in 1987. The issue of 1987 cannot be reopened on the basis of a writ petiti on filed long 21 years thereafter. It is in this context, the Apex Court in Rata n Chandra Sammanta Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1993 SC 2276 held that del ay itself deprives a person of his remedy available in law. In the said case, al though the claim of the petitioner was that he was similarly circumstanced with the other employees, who had got relief from the Court, but the Court declined t o grant relief to the petitioner in view of the inordinate delay, which was 15 y ears in approaching the Court. For all the aforesaid reasons, the prayer of the petitioner cann ot be granted. Consequently the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no or der as to costs. At this stage, Ms. Huda, learned counsel for the petitioner subm its that although the petitioner has retired from service on attaining the age o f superannuationin February, 2008/09, but the respondents have not released the pensionary and other retiremental benefit to him, probably in view of pendency o f the instant writ petition. The respondents are directed to release the pension ary and other retiremental benefits to the petitioner as may be admissible in la w as expeditiously as possible, but at any rate, not later than 31.8.2011.