Delhi High Court
Ravinder Kumar Goel vs Uni0N Of India And Ors on 10 December, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 8067/2012
Date of decision: 10.12.2014
IN THE MATTER OF:
RAVINDER KUMAR GOEL ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate
versus
UNI0N OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Saurabh Kirpal with
Ms. Vartika Sahay, Advocates 2 to 4.
CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying
inter alia for quashing the order dated 2.3.2012, passed by the
respondents No.2 to 4/Oil India Limited, whereunder his request for
promotion as a Grade-D Officer w.e.f. 1.1.1996, was turned down.
Further, the petitioner seeks directions to the respondents 2 to 4/Oil
India Limited to consider him for promotion as a Grade-D Officer
w.e.f. 1.1.1996, along with all consequential benefits.
2. Mr. Saurabh Kirpal, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 to
4/Oil India Limited opposes the present petition on the ground of
gross delay and laches and submits that the same is hopelessly
barred by time. He states that the petitioner has also concealed from
the Court that on 25.8.2014, the date on which he had filed the
present petition, he was on the verge of superannuating and by the
time, the petition was listed for admission on 21.12.2012, the
petitioner had already superannuated on 30.8.2012. He further states
that there is no satisfactory explanation for the delay offered by the
petitioner for approaching the Court after 15 years, when the
respondents No.2 to 4/Oil India Limited had noted as long back as on
22.12.1999 that he was due for promotion to Grade-D Officer, w.e.f.
1.1.1996.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents No.2 to 4/Oil India Limited
further submits that the petitioner has withheld material information
from the Court by failing to disclose in the petition the fact that he
had been promoted as a Grade-D Officer w.e.f. 7.2.2001.
4. The aforesaid factual position is not denied by the counsel for
the petitioner. He, however, seeks to explain the delay in filing the
present petition by stating that during all these years, the petitioner
had been regularly submitting representations to the respondents
No.2 to 4/Oil India Limited, which were not considered. In support of
the said submission, he refers to the letter dated 2.3.2012 issued by
the respondents No.2 to 4/Oil India Limited, wherein the petitioner's
request dated 11.01.2012, for promotion to Grade-D Officer was
turned down.
5. There is no other document placed on record by the petitioner
to establish that he had regularly been corresponding with the
respondents No.2 to 4/Oil India Limited in respect of his grievance
regarding his promotion to Grade-D Officer w.e.f. 1.1.1996 or
22.12.1999 as alleged. Further, mere exchange of correspondence
between an employee and the employer over a prolonged period, for
redressal of his grievance, would not be a ground to condone such an
inordinate delay in approaching the Court for relief. [Ref: Gian Singh
Mann vs. High Court of Punjab & Haryana & Anr. reported as (1980)
4 SCC 266]
6. It is also no longer res integra that when it comes to reliefs like
promotion, etc., where other employees are also likely to be
adversely affected, then the aggrieved employee is expected to
approach the Court for ventilating his grievance within a reasonable
period and certainly not after the passage of fifteen years from the
date when the cause of action would have arisen. [Ref. Union of India
and Ors. vs. Tarsem Singh reported as (2008) 8 SCC 648 and State
of Tamil Nadu vs. Seshachalam reported as (2007) 10 SCC 137].
7. It has been enquired from the counsel for the petitioner if his
client would be willing to confine the relief in the present petition to a
period of three years prior to 25th August, 2012, the date when he
had filed the present petition. He however states that he is not in a
position to give his consent to the aforesaid suggestion.
8. In view of the aforesaid position, the Court has no option but to
dismiss the writ petition as being highly belated and barred by delay
and laches.
(HIMA KOHLI)
DECEMBER 10, 2014 JUDGE
sk/rkb
