Delhi High Court
K.K. Bhardwaj vs D.V.B. & Ors. on 18 July, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
$~R-4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 7819/2000
% 18th July, 2013
K.K. BHARDWAJ ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. H.K. Chaturvedi, Advocate
versus
D.V.B. & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Vikram Nandrajog, Mr. Sushil
Jaswal, Mr. Sheetesh Khanna, Advocates for the
NDPL.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner claiming the following
reliefs:
"a) Issue an appropriate writ/order/directions against the
respondents thereby directing them to promote the petitioner
as Legal Asstt. since Feb. 1987, alongwith all legal
consequential benefits, as Jr. Clerk Mr. H.L. Verma, E.No.
16041-5 was appointed as legal Asstt. who joined his
services in the year on 31.1.1974 though the petitioner joined
his services on 26.6.1963; and he has not been called for
interview even; though, if there is any charge, then the result
of that candidate must be kept under sealed cover and always
subject to outcome of his case, therefore, the petitioner
entitles for the relief;
b) Issue an appropriate writ/order/directions for
quashing/setting-aside the penalty orders dated 6.8.1986,
29.9.1986 (appellate order), and 19.10.89 passed by the
respondents illegally and unjustifidely;
c) Quash the order dt. 18.2.2000, by which even the petitioner
was in general cadre not promoted as a section officer,
though his all juniors have been promoted as section officer
and direct the respondents to consider the case of the
petitioner for higher promotion as per rules;
d) Issue directions to make the payment of the interest with
regard to belated payment which was directed to be paid upto
31.5.1998 and was paid in the month of Feb. 1999, as per
order dated 17.3.1998 in C.W.P. No. 5025/97;"
2. This writ petition was filed on 20.12.2000. At the end of the year
2000, orders which are sought to be quashed as stated in prayer „b‟, viz of
the years 1986 and 1989, cannot be sought on the ground of gross delay and
laches. No doubt, Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to a writ petition,
however, a certain period of limitation is kept in mind and the same is
overlooked only if certain representations are pending which are not decided
by the Department and which is not so as per the facts in this case.
Therefore, in the end of the year 2000, orders which are passed in the year
1986 i. e about 15 years back and in 1989 i. e about 11 years back cannot be
permitted to be challenged and the writ petition with regard to challenge of
orders, as prayed for in prayer „b‟, is dismissed on the ground of gross delay
and laches.
3. Prayers „a‟ and „c‟ are connected because according to the learned
counsel for the petitioner the petitioner seeks appointment as a Legal
Assistant since February 1987 and thereafter further promotion by quashing
of the order dated 18.2.2000. Once again, I cannot grant an entitlement to
promotion claimed from February 1987 when a writ petition is filed in
December 2000 i. e more than 13 years later. I would have been inclined to
grant a theoretical promotion to the petitioner if a specific case was pleaded
in the writ petition that promotion is to be granted as Legal Assistant in
February 1987 purely and only by seniority on completing a particular years
of service, however, there is no such cause of action laid down in the writ
petition that petitioner automatically became entitled to be appointed to as a
Legal Assistant merely on the ground of seniority and by completing
particular years of service. Therefore, these prayers „a‟ and „c‟ are
accordingly rejected on the ground of gross delay and laches.
4. That takes us to prayer „d‟ for grant of interest from 31.5.1998
to February 1999 because the subsistence allowance is said to have been
paid with delay pursuant to the order dated 17.3.1998 in C.W.P. No.
5025/1997 filed by the petitioner. A reading of the order dated 17.3.1998
shows that no direction for payment of interest was given in case petitioner
receives the subsistence allowance with delay. What could be specifically
prayed for and granted in an earlier writ petition, and the same is not granted
will be barred by construction of res judicata if that relief is claimed in a
subsequent proceeding. The prayer for interest because subsistence
allowance was paid in February 1989 instead of May, 1998 also thus cannot
be granted.
5. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving the parties
to bear their own costs.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
JULY 18, 2013
godara
