S.N. Chandrappa vs Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation

A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.—The petitioner joined service of the respondent No. 1, on 21.04.1998, as Assistant Lineman Grade-II. He was promoted on 09.06.2003 to the cadre of Lineman. By a Notification dated 14.11.2007, juniors to the petitioner in the cadre of lineman were promoted to the cadre of Meter Reader. There was promotions again from the cadre of lineman to the cadre of Meter Reader on 15.04.2008. The petitioner was promoted to the cadre of Meter Reader on 30.11.2010. Having submitted the representations dated 06.01.2011, 20.01.2011 and 30.11.2012, seeking promotion with retrospective effect from 14.11.2007 and finding no response, this writ petition was filed on 20.09.2013, asking for a mandamus against the respondents, to consider the promotion of the petitioner to the cadre of Meter Reader with retrospective effect i.e., from 14.11.2007 and to award all consequential and monitory benefits.

Sri Pradeep C. Yadav, learned advocate, contended that Regulation 7 of Karnataka Electricity Board Recruitment and Promotion Regulations envisages that the promotion of employees shall be on seniority-cum-merit basis and by giving a go-bye to the seniority of the petitioner, persons below his rank in the seniority list, were promoted on 14.11.2007 and 15.04.2008 and the petitioner having been denied the promotion illegally, was promoted on 30.11.2010 and the said action being unjust and arbitrary, interference is called for. He submitted that the successive representations made by the petitioner to the respondents vide Annexures-H, J and K, have remained unconsidered and in view of the promotion granted to one Sri. S.A. Manjunath, on 24.11.2012 vide Annexure-L, there being discrimination, the respondents be directed to accord promotion to the petitioner with retrospective effect i.e., from 14.11.2007 and extend all consequential service benefits.

The claim for retrospective promotion made by the petitioner w.e.f. 14.11.2007, in my opinion is grossly belated. This writ petition was filed on 20.09.2013. Thus, there is gap of nearly six years. There is no valid explanation offered by the petitioner for the inordinate delay. Merely because the petitioner made successive representations, that too commencing from 06.01.2011, hardly justifies overlooking of the inordinate delay. Relief to the petitioner has to be refused on the ground of inordinate and unexplained delay. The cause of action for the petitioner to seek promotion having arisen, when his juniors were promoted on 14.11.2007, he ought to have sought the relief within a reasonable period therefrom. The retrospective promotion, if accorded to the petitioner, would affect the service conditions of other employees, who were promoted on 14.11.2007 and on 15.04.2008, since, they must have progressed further in the service. Equitable relief must be claimed within a reasonable time. The petitioner is guilty of delay in ventilating his grievance and this writ petition suffers from gross delay and laches.

In Ghulam Rasool Lone Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Another, , the material facts were, that promotion was granted to one Hamiddulah Dar, illegally upon relaxing the prescribed rules in the year 1987. Seven persons said to be similarly situate asked for similar treatment One of them was Abdul Rashid Rather, a Constable, who filed a writ petition and was allowed on 24.09.1998. An appeal filed there against was dismissed on 30.07.1999 and a SLP filed against the said order was also dismissed. Ghulam Rasool Lone, filed a writ petition in 2000 by making reference to the promotion accorded to Mr. Abdul Rashid Rather and was allowed on 04.12.2003. An appeal filed by the State of Jammu and Kashmir having been allowed, on 19.03.2009, SLP was filed before the Apex Court for relief. Considering the rival contentions and while dismissing the case, it has been held as follows:

It is beyond any cavil of doubt that the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is a discretionary one. For sufficient or cogent reasons a court may in a given case refuse to exercise its jurisdiction; delay and laches being one of them.

While considering the question of delay and laches on the part of the petitioner, the court must also consider the effect there of. Promotion of Hamidullah Dar was effected in the year 1987. Abdul Rashid Rather filed his writ petition immediately after the promotion was granted. He, therefore, was not guilty of any delay in ventilating his grievances. It will bear repetition to state that the petitioner waited till Abdul Rashid Rather was in fact promoted. He did not consider it necessary either to join him or to file a separate writ petition immediately thereafter, although even according to him, Abdul Rashid Rather was junior to him.

The Division Bench, therefore, in our opinion rightly opined that the petitioner was sitting on the fence.

If at this late juncture the petitioner is directed to be promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector even above Abdul Rashid Rather, the seniority of those who had been promoted in the meantime or have been directly recruited would be affected. The State would also have to pay the back wages to him which would be a drainage of public funds. Whereas an employee cannot be denied his promotion in terms of the Rules, the same cannot be granted out of the way as a result whereof the rights of third parties are affected. The aspect of public interest as also the general administration must, therefore, be kept in mind while granting equitable relief.

We understand that there would be a heart burning in so far as the petitioner is concerned, but then he is to thank himself therefor. If those five persons, who were seniors to Hamiddulah Dar filed writ petitions immediately, the High Court might have directed cancellation of his illegal promotion. This Court in Maharaj Krishan Bhatt (supra) did not take into consideration all these aspects of the matter and the binding decision of a three Judge Bench of this Court in Govt. of W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy (supra). The Division Bench of the High Court, therefore, in our opinion was right in opining that it was not necessary for it to follow Maharaj Krishan Bhatt (supra).

The claim made by the petitioner in this writ petition being identical, in view of the ratio of the decision, noticed supra and there being inordinate delay and laches, I do not find justification to issue Rule Nisi.

In the result, the writ petition is rejected.