Raghubir Singh vs State Of H. P And Others

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

Writ petitioner’s claim to retrospective promotion and consequential seniority was rejected by the learned Single Judge. Aggrieved, he has

preferred instant appeal.

On 20.01.1998, the appellant filed original application before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal. His assertion was that he was

assigned seniority as Head Constable (Wireless) w.e.f. 15.09.1968, whereas he had passed out Basic Police Radio Training Course in November,

1964. Therefore, the petitioner prayed for his promotion as Head Constable (W) and consequential seniority w.e.f. November, 1964.

On abolition of learned tribunal, the original application was transferred to this Court. It was registered as CWP(T) No. 4861 of 2008. Learned writ

Court did not find any force in the contention of the appellant/writ petitioner on merits.

The writ petition was also held to have been filed at a belated stage.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant record.

The petitioner is claiming retrospective promotion as Head Constable(W) and consequential seniority w.e.f. November, 1964. This claim was made

by the petitioner by filing the original application on 20.01.1998. The petitioner is seeking seniority over various private respondents. The settled

seniority position of 1968 was being sought to be unsettled by the petitioner 30 years later. The petitioner cannot be allowed to rake up the settled

issues after such a long period. His writ petition hopelessly suffered from unexplained delay and laches. It is also seen from the record that the

petitioner though asserted to have passed the Basic Police Radio Training Course in November, 1964, however, no such declaration was made by the

official respondents. The stand of the State in the reply was that the petitioner had not qualified the course of Morse Reading and Sending Theory.

That in such circumstances, he was not declared to have passed the course in November, 1964. The petitioner was promoted as Head Constable (W)

only on 15.09.1968, whereas the private respondents were promoted much earlier to him. Therefore, his contention that he was required to be

promoted and assigned seniority earlier to the private respondents is not borne out from the record. The judgment passed by learned Single Judge does

not call for any interference.

Consequently, there is no merit in the present appeal which is accordingly dismissed alongwith the pending applications, if any.