The petitioner, an Assistant Foreman, sought a writ direction for promotion to Foreman/Junior Engineer with a deemed date from 1992, citing a junior's promotion. The court dismissed the petition as the claim was not maintainable due to a delay of 19 years and laches.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
KUMAR MANOJ #1# 2015.02.06 12:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP No.12002 of 2011 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.12002 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 01.7.2014
Madan Pal Tyagi
.............Petitioner
v.
Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd and Ors.
.............Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present:- Ms. Sanamjeet Kaur, Advocate for
Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the petitioner. None for respondent Nos.1 & 2.
Ms. Manju Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate for respondent No.3.
Jaswant Singh,J
Petitioner, who is working as Assistant Foreman, has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for directing the respondents to consider his case for promotion to the post of Foreman/Junior Engineer and to grant him deemed date of promotion w.e.f 25.9.1992 i.e the date when his junior/respondent No.3 was promoted along with all consequential benefits.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent No.3-Vijender Kumar, who is junior to the petitioner and stands already promoted to the rank of Foreman by the respondents, thus, the inaction of the respondents while not promoting the petitioner at par with his junior is arbitrary and discriminatory.
None appeared for respondent Nos.1 & 2.
#2#
CWP No.12002 of 2011 (O&M)
On the other hand, it is submitted by learned counsel for respondent No.3 that his client was promoted on the post of officiating Foreman (Construction)/Junior Engineer in the pay scale of Rs.16002660/- vide order dated 25.9.1992 (P.5) by the competent authority and thus, the claim of parity by the petitioner after a period of more than 20 years is not maintainable in view of delay and laches.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent No.3 and perused the paper book with their able assistance.
Although reply has been filed but no one appeared on behalf of respondent Nos.1 & 2.
A perusal of reply filed on behalf of respondent No.3 reveals that earlier the petitioner was working with the Beas Construction Board (for short “BCB”) in terms of the requirement of erstwhile Haryana State Electricity Board (for short “HSEB”). Thereafter, respondent No.3 was promoted to the post of officiating Foreman (Construction) vide order dated 25.9.1992 (P.5) and thereafter further promoted to the rank of Special Foreman (Construction) vide order dated 28.9.1995. Still further, vide order dated 08.09.2008, respondent No.3 along with other persons were re-designated as J.E (Field), which was subsequently modified vide corrigendum dated 28.2.2009.
It has also been specifically submitted in preliminary objection No.3 that respondent No.3 was already working at higher post at all the stages and thus, there cannot be any comparison between the petitioner and respondent No.3. It has further been submitted in
#3#
CWP No.12002 of 2011 (O&M)
preliminary objection No.4 that respondent No.3 being an employee of the BCB was entitled for benefit of relaxation in Educational Qualification in view of clause 7 of the Recruitment and Promotion Policy dated 07.05.1992 (P.1) issued by the HSEB and thus, rightly considered and promoted to the post of Special Foreman (Construction) vide order dated 25.09.1992 (P.5). Moreover, a perusal of para 6 of legal notice dated 19.5.2010 (P.9) issued on behalf of the petitioner clearly reveals that his case was not considered for promotion at the relevant time due to the reason that his qualification of Matriculation was not recognized whereas as discussed above the case of respondent No.3 was considered under clause 7 of the Policy and he was granted the relaxation in qualification at the relevant time.
In view of the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, it is apparently clear that respondent No.3 was promoted way back in the year 1992 and thereafter subsequently granted subsequent promotions but the petitioner went in deep slumber and has filed the present petition after a gap of 19 years.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, no case for mandamus is
made out.
Dismissed.
July 01, 2014 manoj
(Jaswant Singh) Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a court mandamus directing the respondents to consider his case for promotion to the post of Foreman/Junior Engineer along with deemed date of promotion.
Whether the claim of parity by the petitioner after a delay of more than 20 years is maintainable in view of delay and laches.
Madan Pal Tyagi
Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd
Vikas Chatrath
Jaswant Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
