Delhi High Court

Anil Kumar Anand vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 November, 2015

Author: V. Kameswar Rao

*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                   Judgment reserved on October 08, 2015
                                 Judgment delivered on November 2, 2015
     +         W.P.(C) 7114/2015 & CM Nos. 13046-13047/2015 &
                              22755-22756/2015

ANIL KUMAR ANAND                                         ..... Petitioner
                            Through:    Petitioner in person

                            versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS                                ..... Respondents
                   Through:             Mr.Rakesh Kumar, CGSC
                                        with Ms.Divya Jain, Adv. for
                                        R-1
                                        Mr.R.P. Bhatt, Sr. Advocate
                                        with Mr.Sanjeev Kr.,
                                        Mr.Sudhanshu Palo, Mr.Naik
                                        H.K and Mr.Arun Kumar,
                                        Advocates for R-2, R-3 & R-
                                        5
                                        Mr. Rajiv Kapur, Adv. with
                                        Mr. Karan Kakkar, Adv. for
                                        R6-SBI
                                        Mr.Arun Aggarwal, Adv. for
                                        R-8
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO
V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.

W.P.(C) 7114/2015 with CM 22755/2015 (u/S 5 of Limitation Act)

1. The petitioner Mr.Anil Kumar Anand has filed the present writ

petition seeking the following prayers:

"a. issue a writ of mandamus or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the report of the review D.P.C. dated January 09,

2008.

b. issue a writ of mandamus or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent to promote the petitioner to Grade 'C‟ in Scale-III, with retrospective effect from January 2, 1995 for the panel year 1994-95 and to consider the petitioner for further promotions to higher Grades, with retrospective effect, as per the Promotion Policy and instructions issued by the Government of India and to give all the consequential benefits with due seniority.

c. issue a writ of mandamus or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent to treat the petitioner as deemed to have been promoted to Grade 'C in Scale-III, with retrospective effect from January 2, 1995 and to consider the petitioner for further promotions to higher Grades with retrospective effect up to the 'Executive Director' level in Scale-VII, as per the Promotion Policy and the instructions issued by the Central Government of India, through its O.M. No. 38012/6/83-East(SCT) dated 01-11-1990 and the O.M. No. 36012/18/95-Esst(Res.) Pt:II, dated the 13th August, 1997 and to give all the consequential benefits to the petitioner with due Seniority.

d. issue a writ of mandamus or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent to consider and promote the petitioner and include petitioner's name in appropriate select lists (as assailed in this writ petition), for his promotion to Grade 'D' in Scale-IV, Grade 'E' in Scale-V, Grade T' in scale-VI and to the 'Executive Director' (ED) Grade in Scale-VII, with retrospective effect, from the date, the other officers junior to the petitioner, have been promoted to such higher Grades, as per the instructions issued by the Central Government of India, through its O.M. No. 38012/6/83-East(SCT)

dated 01-11-1990 and the O.M. No. 36012/18/95- Esst(Res.) Pt:II, dated the 13th August, 1997 and the judgment dated January 9, 2015 pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the Civil Appeal no. 209 of 2015, in the matter of Chairman & Managing Director of Central Bank of India & Ors. Versus Central Bank of India SC/ST Employees Welfare Association and Ors. and to give all the consequential benefits since January 2, 1995 with due seniority to the petitioner.

e. issue a writ of mandamus or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to issue appropriate Office Order/s to restore and fix the Seniority of the petitioner equivalent to Grades F at President / Group President level and to consider the petitioner for promotion and elevation to the Executive Director Grade in Scale-VII.

f. issue a writ of mandamus or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents for granting parity of pay to the petitioner with retrospective effect and to fix the emoluments of the petitioner as are being paid to Mr. Annandeep S Chopra, Mr. Imtaiyazur Rahman, Mr. Priya Ranjan, Mr. Sanjay Dongre, Ms. Swati Kulkarni, Mr. Debashish Mohanty, Mr. Linga Pandian S., Mr. Surajit Saha, Mr. Vivek Maheshwari and to other officers, who were junior to the petitioner.

g. issue a writ of mandamus or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents for payment of arrears of pay to the petitioner, being the difference of the total emoluments, as have been paid after January 2, 1995 to Mr. Amandeep S Chopra, Mr. Imtaiyazur Rahman, Mr. Anoop Bhasker, Mr. Jaideep Bhattacharya, Mr. Priya Ranjan, Mr Sanjay Dongre, Ms. Swati Kulkarni, Mr. Debashish Mohanty, Mr Linga Pandian S., Mr. Surajit Saha,

Mr. Vivek Maheshwari and to other officers, who were junior to the petitioner, including those, who had wrongly superseded the petitioner in promotion to Grade 'C, in gross violation of the Promotion policy, flouting the rule of seniority cum merit, in the panel year 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97.

h. issue a writ of mandamus or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to set aside and quash the entire allotment of ESOPs being arbitrary and hence illegal and directions may be issued to the respondent to re-allot the ESOPs, on a fair and transparent criterion, as is normally done in Public Sector Undertakings and as per the norms as may be approved by the Government of India.

i. issue a writ of mandamus or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to allot equal number of ESOPs to the petitioner, as have been allotted to Mr. Amandeep S Chopra, Mr. Imtaiyazur Rahman, Mr. Anoop Bhasker, Mr. Jaideep Bhattacharya, Mr Sanjay Dongre, Ms. Swati Kulkarni, Mr. Debashish Mohanty, Mr Linga Pandian S., Mr. Surajit Saha, Mr. Vivek Maheshwari and to other officers, who were junior to the petitioner.

j. issue a writ of mandamus or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the State Bank of India, the Punjab National Bank, the Bank of Baroda and the Life Insurance Corporation of India to cause 'Trustee Company' and 'UTI AMC to comply with the judgment delivered on August 18, 2006 in CWP 1067/1999 and to promote the petitioner to higher Grades up to the 'Executive Director' Grade in Scale-VII, with retrospective effect as prayed in this writ petition and to pay the arrears of pay to the petitioner, being the difference of total emoluments and other monetary

benefits, as have been paid to Mr. Amandeep S Chopra, Mr. Imtaiyazur Rahman, Mr. Anoop Bhasker, Mr. Jaideep Bhattacharya, Mr. Gaurav Suri, Mr. Suraj Kaeley, Mr. Mr. Priya Ranjan, Mr Sanjay Dongre, Ms. Swati Kulkarni, Mr. Debashish Mohanty, Mr Linga Pandian S., Mr. Surajit Saha, Mr. Vivek Maheshwari and to other officers, who were junior to the petitioner, including those, who had wrongly superseded the petitioner in promotion to Grade 'C, in gross violation of the Promotion policy, flouting the rule of seniority cum merit, in the panel year 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97.

k. issue a writ of mandamus or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the Trustee Company' to comply with the judgment which was delivered on August 18, 2006 in CWP 1067/1999 and to promote the petitioner to higher Grades up to the 'Executive Director' Grade in Scale-VII, with retrospective effect as prayed in this Writ petition and to pay the arrears of pay to the petitioner, being the difference of total emoluments and other monetary benefits, as have been paid to other officers.

I. issue a writ of mandamus or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to consider the entire period of extraordinary leave / absence of the petitioner from 17/04/2002 to 07/07/2006, as counting for increment, pension, retirement and other benefits.

m. issue a writ of mandamus or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to set aside and quash the Administrative Circular no. 12/2014-15 dated November 15, 2014, being arbitrary and illegal.

n. issue a writ of mandamus or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to restore the terms and conditions of

petitioner's service with his Seniority, Grade and Grade based pay, with all other benefits and privileges, as were available to the petitioner, while he was working with the erstwhile UTI, in line with the UTI (Staff) Rules, as mandated under the provisions of the UTI (Transfer of Undertaking and Repeal) Act, 2002.

o. issue a writ of mandamus or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to set aside and quash the Administration Circular no 6/ 2013-14 dated July 29, 2013 being arbitrary and illegal.

p. issue a writ of mandamus or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to set aside and quash the warning letter no. UT/0- DHRD-2784/IR-5(4)/2015-16 dated 22/6/2015 and to expunge the aforesaid warning from the service record of the petitioner.

q. issue a writ of mandamus or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the Trustee Company' the Specified Company of the Unit Trust of India, in this matter, as may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of this case.

r. issue a writ of mandamus or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to restore the facility of accrual of 18 days sick leave from April 01, 2004 onwards in terms of Section 6 of the Repeal Act and declare the Administration Circular no. 52 dated 31/3/2004 in respect of withdrawal of the facility of accrual of sick leave, as illegal.

s. issue a writ of mandamus or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents for extending medical benefits for all the diseases for treatment, hospitalization and

surgery with 100% reimbursement, for the petitioner, his wife and his mother and all such facilities ought to continue, as it is, under the medical benefit scheme of the respondents and the Medical Assistant Fund, while the petitioner is In employment and even after his retirement, till all the beneficiaries i.e. the petitioner, his wife and petitioner's mother, are alive.

t. issue a writ of mandamus or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to undergo the Bariatric Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy (Sleeve) surgery, under the medical benefit scheme of the respondents and the Medical Assistance Fund.

u. issue a writ of mandamus or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to constitute a managing committee for the contributory Medical Assistance Fund (MAF), which shall manage the fund and provide financial help to the contributors, in a transparent and fair manner.

v. issue a writ of mandamus or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the Government of India to cause the four Sponsors, the Trustee Company and the UTI AMC Ltd. to restore all the privileges and benefits etc. of the petitioner, as were available to the petitioner as on February 1, 2003, as mandated under the provisions of the UTI (Transfer of Undertaking and Repeal) Act, 2002.

w. issue a writ of mandamus or certiorari or any I other appropriate writ, order or direction to terminate the Transfer Agreement dated January 15, 2003 for non-consummation of the transactions contemplated and provided for in the UTI (Transfer of Undertaking & Repeal) Act, 2002.

x. issue a writ of mandamus or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the Government of India and four subscribers. State Bank of India, Punjab National Bank, Bank of Baroda and the Life Insurance Corporation of India, to take control of the internal affairs and operations of tine respondent UTI AMC Ltd. and to restore order and transparency in tine organisation.

y. issue a writ of mandamus or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to set aside and quash the sale of 26% stake to M/s T Rowe Price Group, in both the 'Specified Companies' established under the provisions of UTI (Transfer of Undertaking and Repeal) Act, 2002, as illegal and void-ab-initio.

z. issue a writ of mandamus or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to remove the two directors appointed by M/s T Rowe Price Group, from the Board of the Directors of the UTI Asset Management Company Limited.

aa. issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to set aside and quash the appointment of Head HR Mr. Priya Ranjan being arbitrary and hence illegal.

bb. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to replace the Ombudsman under the Whistle Blower Policy of the UTI AMC.

cc. Award cost and incidentals in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.

dd. Pass any other appropriate orders, striking down of the rules and policies of the respondents as mentioned in the ground and body of the writ petition and any other circulars /s, which fall foul

of constitutional and legal requirements, directions as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case".

2. The above reveals that in all, the petitioner has made 30 prayers.

The aforesaid prayers can be broadly categorized into the following:

(i) Prayers 'a' to 'f', 'g', 'j' and 'k' are related to the Review D.P.C.

dated January 9, 2008 for promotion to Grade C in Scale III with

retrospective effect from January 2, 1995 for panel year 1994-95 and

consequential reliefs thereof like seniority, promotions till the Grade of

Executive Director Scale-VII and pay fixation thereof.

(ii) Prayers 'h' and 'i' are the prayers relating to allotment of ESOPs.

(iii) Prayer at 'l' relates to counting the Extra-Ordinary leaves/absence

of the petitioner from April 17, 2002 to July 7, 2006 for the purpose of

increment, pension, retirement and other benefits.

(iv) Prayer 'm' relates to challenge to administrative circular dated

November 15, 2014.

(v) Prayer 'n' is for restoring the terms and conditions of the

petitioner with regard to his seniority, Grade based pay and other

benefits and privileges as were available to him while working in the

erstwhile UTI.

(vi) Prayer 'o' is challenge to administrative circular dated July 29,

2013.

(vii) Prayer 'p' is seeking quashing of letter dated June 22, 2015

whereby the petitioner was 'warned'.

(viii) Prayer 'r' is for restoration of facility of accrual of 18 days sick

leave from April 1, 2004 and further declare the administrative circular

dated March 31, 2004 as illegal.

(ix) Prayer 's', 't', 'u' relate to extending the medical benefits/allowing

the petitioner to undergo laparoscopic surgery/for constituting the

Management Committee for Contributory Medical Assistance Fund.

(x) Prayer 'v' is for direction to the Government of India to cause the

four sponsors, the trustee companies and the UTI AMC Ltd. to restore all

privileges and benefits.

(xi) Prayer 'w' is for terminating the transfer of agreement dated

January 15, 2003 for non-consummation of the transactions

contemplated and provided for in the UTI (Transfer of Undertaking and

Repeal) Act, 2002.

(xii) Prayer 'x' is for direction to the Government of India and four

subscribers to take control of the internal affairs and operations of the

respondent UTI AMC Ltd.

(xiii) Prayers 'y' and 'z' are to set aside and quash the sale of 26%

stake to M/s. T. Rowe Price Group in both the specified companies

established under UTI (Transfer of Undertaking and Repeal) Act, 2002,

and for a direction to remove the two Directors appointed by M/s. T.

Rowe Price Group from the Board of Directors of the UTI AMC Ltd.

(xiv) Prayer 'aa' is a challenge to the appointment of Mr. Priya

Ranjan, Head (HR) being illegal.

(xv) Prayer 'bb' is for a direction to the respondents to replace the

Ombudsman under the Whistle Blower Policy of the UTI AMC.

(xvi) Prayer 'cc' is for costs. Prayer 'dd' is for appropriate order for

quashing the rules/policies of the respondents mentioned in the ground

and body of the writ petition and any other circulars which fall foul of

constitutional and legal requirements, directions as may be deemed fit.

3. Insofar as the prayers at 'a' to 'g', 'j' and 'k' are concerned, as

stated above, the same primarily relate to challenge to the Review

D.P.C. held on January 9, 2008 for considering the case of the petitioner

for promotion to Grade 'C' Scale-III and consequential benefits thereof.

It is noted, the petitioner was denied promotion to Grade 'C' in Scale-III

for the panel year 1994, 1995 and 1996. He filed a writ petition being

CWP 1067/1999 in this Court. It was the case of the petitioner that his

grievance for promotion to Grade 'C' with effect from January 2, 1995

was not resolved by the respondents. The writ petition was disposed of

on August 18, 2006, with this Court directing the respondent-Unit Trust

of India to hold a Review D.P.C., for the panel years 1994, 1995 and

1996 by considering his record afresh, after giving appropriate

weightage to seniority and ACRs. The respondent UTI AMC filed an

intra-court appeal, LPA No. 2262-68 of 2006, challenging the order of

the learned Single Judge dated August 18, 2006 in CWP 1067/1999. On

November 26, 2006, the Appellate Court was of the view that the

process for consideration in terms of the order of the learned Single

Judge may continue but no final order be passed by the appellant i.e. UTI

AMC till the next date. It is noted that on January 9, 2008, during the

pendency of the appeal, D.P.C., noting the order passed by the Appellate

Court, considered the case of the petitioner, but, did not found him fit for

promotion to Grade 'C' Scale-III for the panel years 1994, 1995 and

1996. The LPA was disposed of by the Appellate Court on May 8, 2009

in terms of the following order:

"Mr. Prag Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellants states that the review D.P.C. was constituted in terms of the judgment of the learned Single Judge and the review has recorded that it is unable to recommend the respondents' name for promotion for three years in question. Mr. Tripathi submits that in view of the review D.P.C.'s report, he does not wish to press these appeals.

Accordingly, appeals stand disposed of with liberty to the respondent to challenge the recommendation of the review D.P.C., if so advised. It is made clear that the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge shall not be cited as a precedent in case of any other employee."

It is the case of the petitioner that the order on the recommendation of

the D.P.C. has not been communicated to him despite 28

Emails/representations, 3 legal notices, served upon the respondents in

the last six years, starting from May 8, 2009 for compliance of the

judgment dated August 18, 2006 in CWP 1067/1999. He would also

state that he has been further subjected to victimization and harassment

due to caste and other biases, so much so, he has been deprived of an

opportunity of being heard. He has also been denied his promotions to

higher post in Grade 'D', Grade 'E' and Grade 'F' and Executive

Director Grade in Scale VII, to which he was entitled to in terms of

Government of India OM dated November 1, 1990 and OM dated

August 13, 1997 in respect of providing the promotion to SC/ST officers

upto the Executive Director level in Scale VII. The petitioner's case is

also that he had a meeting with Mr. U.K.Sinha, the then CMD, on

November 16, 2010 and January 10, 2011 for compliance of the

judgment dated August 18, 2006, who in the meeting, had advised the

petitioner to submit a fresh representation for compliance of the

judgement dated August 18, 2006. The petitioner accordingly made a

representation dated January 11, 2011, but, unfortunately, as Mr.

U.K.Sinha left the post of CMD of UTI AMC and the UTI AMC

remained headless for two and a half years, his representation could not

be taken to logical conclusion.

4. The respondent Nos. 2 to 3 filed a short counter affidavit, wherein,

they have taken a stand that they are Board of Trustees and the Trustee

Chairman of the UTI Trustee Co. Pvt. Ltd. and the Trustee Company

does not have an employee-employer relationship with the petitioner. It

was their stand that the Trustee company is neither aware nor concerned

with the inter-se disputes between petitioner and UTI AMC. The

respondent Nos. 2 and 3, in their affidavit sought deletion of their names

along with the names of the respondent Nos. 6 to 11 from the array of

the parties of the present writ petition.

5. A brief counter affidavit has also been filed by the respondent No.

5, which is UTI AMC Ltd., wherein, it has pleaded delay and laches.

That apart, on merit, the respondent No. 5 has in para 7 and 8, averred as

under:

"7. That adverting to the facts of the present case, petitioner herein filed Writ Petition (civil) No.1067/1999 before this Hon'ble Court inter alia praying for

a. his promotion from B-Grade to C-Grade be given effect w.e.f„ 02.01.1995;

b. quashing of enquiry report and order of reprimand passed by the Appointing Authority.

c. to declare extension of officiation in Grade B as arbitrary and unjustified.

8. That by its Judgment and Order dated 18.08.2006, the learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court was pleased to

partly allow the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner herein by directing inter alia as under:

"The Respondent is directed to review the D.P.C. so far as the Petitioner is concerned, for the promotion to Grade C for the panel years 1994, 1995 and 1996 and consider his records afresh, after giving appropriate weightage for seniority and his ACRs.

9. That being aggrieved of the direction of the Ld. Single Judge, the respondents including the respondent No. 5 herein filed Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 2262-2268/2006 before the Division Bench of this Hon‟ble Court.

10. That in compliance of the judgment and order dated 18.08.2006 passed by the ld. Single Judge in Writ Petition (C) No. 1067/1999, a Departmental Promotion Committee consisting of three senior officers of the 5th Respondent herein Sri S.C.Dikshit the then (Chief Legal Advisor), Sri B.Babu Rao (President) and Sri T.N.Radhakrishna the then (Head- HR) was constituted to review the DPC of the petitioner Anil Kumar Anand for the panel years 1994, 1995 and 1996. It is respectfully submitted that by its report dated 09.01.2008, the review Departmental Promotion Committee recommended as under:

„The Committee considered all above facts, Seniority & ACR of Sri A K Anand and is unable to recommend for the promotion of Sri A K Anand‟.

6. In rejoinder to the brief counter affidavit filed by the respondent

No. 5, the petitioner in para (iii) has inter alia, stated that the question of

delay and laches does not arise in the peculiar facts and circumstances

of the case. According to him, the report of the Review D.P.C. dated

January 9, 2008 was already rejected by then CMD Mr.U.K.Sinha and

the matter for promotion of the petitioner to Grade 'F', counting the

seniority of the petitioner in Grade 'C' from January 2, 1995, had

already reached a very advance stage in February, 2011 when the

Government of India appointed Mr. U.K.Sinha as the next Chairman of

the SEBI and he had to leave to the UTI AMC in hurry on February 17,

2011. According to the petitioner, the company remained headless for

almost two and a half years. Moreover, it is his stand that the outcome

of the representation or appeal of the petitioner dated January 11, 2011

has still not been conveyed to him. Further, he would state, the

implementation of the judgement dated August 18, 2006 in CWP

1067/1999, has not been communicated to him till date. The petitioner,

in his rejoinder, has also attacked the conclusion of the Review D.P.C.,

not finding him fit for promotion.

I note, the petitioner has also filed an application under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the present writ

petition. The said application is of 70 pages. The paras 103 to 154 relate

to facts explaining delay. I am not reproducing the said paras for

brevity. From the said paras, it is noted that the same primarily relate to

the meetings, the petitioner had with the officers of the respondent No. 5,

the representations made, legal notices got issued to the officers of the

respondent No. 5. He has also highlighted the assurances given by the

officers to settle the matter. According to him, the limitation would only

start after the representations of the petitioner dated January 11, 2011

was disposed of by the Appellate Authority and the order was conveyed

to the petitioner. The petitioner in para 154 also stated no such order of

the Appellate Authority was conveyed to him.

7. During the course of his submission, the petitioner appearing in

person, apart from reiterating the stand taken by him in the writ petition,

has drawn my attention to page 747 of the petition, the representation

made by him on January 11, 2011 to the then CMD of the UTI AMC /

and various mails sent by him with regard to his request for complying

with the judgment dated August 18, 2006. He would also state that he

has been making continuous representations, but despite those

representations, till date, the respondents have not given any

communication on the decision of the Review D.P.C.. The petitioner

would also refer to the averments made by him, with regard to his

meeting with Mr. U.K.Sinha, the then CMD of the UTI AMC, who had

assured him of his promotion, but, unfortunately because is his exit from

the company, the assurances, could not be given effect to. In other

words, it is his case that as no communication has been received with

regard to the decision of the D.P.C., no cause of action has arisen for the

petitioner to approach the Court. The cause of action would arise when

he receives final order of the appellate authority on his representation

dated January 11, 2011.

8. On the other hand, Mr. R.P. Bhatt, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 5 has with regard to the

petitioner's prayers for promotion to Grade 'C' Scale-III, drawn my

attention to the order passed by the Division Bench dated May 8, 2009 to

contend, despite liberty granted by the Court, the petitioner did not care

to challenge the outcome of the Review D.P.C. dated January 9, 2008.

He would also state, the impression the petitioner had that he would

approach the Court only after a communication in that regard is received,

is a figment of imagination of the petitioner as there is no mandate under

the Rules for communicating a decision of the D.P.C. He would also

state, the statement made before the Court itself is a sufficient notice to

the petitioner to approach the Court to challenge the recommendation of

the Review D.P.C. He would state, the petitioner having not done that

and the fact that the petitioner, instead, went on making representations

for so many years, without approaching this Court, seeking the reliefs as

sought in this writ petition, after such a long period of time, is surely hit

by delay and laches and this Court would not like to entertain the claim

of the petitioner insofar as his claim for promotion to Grade 'C' Scale-

III is concerned, more particularly, third party rights have intervened.

He would rely upon the following judgments of the Supreme Court in

support of his contention:

1. Union of India and Ors. Vs. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648

2. Pundlik Jalam Patil (Dead) by LRs Vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project and Anr., (2008) 17 SCC

3. State of Maharashtra Vs. Digambar, (1995) 4 SCC 683

9. Having heard the petitioner in person and learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 5, insofar as the prayers at 'a'

to 'f', 'g' 'j' and 'k', which are inter-related, are concerned, suffice to

state, there was clear representation on behalf of UTI AMC to the fact

that the petitioner has not been recommended by the Review D.P.C. It

was a sufficient notice to the petitioner to approach this

Court/appropriate judicial forum, challenging the recommendation of the

Review D.P.C. Liberty was also granted to the petitioner to challenge

the same. Unfortunately, the petitioner did not approach a Court for

challenging the same. The impression he carried that the respondents

shall give a communication in that regard is unfounded as the petitioner

as no shown me any rule/instruction in support of his stand that such an

order also need to be communicated.

10. On the aspect of his representation to the then CMD, suffice to

State, it is the version of the petitioner, in his rejoinder that the

proceedings of the Review D.P.C. have been nullified. There is nothing

on record to show that such a decision was taken by the respondent No.

5. The case of the petitioner in his representations/emails is primarily for

complying with the orders or the directions issued by this Court in its

judgment dated August 18, 2006.

11. Suffice to state, this Court in its judgment dated August 18, 2006

has only directed a fresh consideration of the petitioner's case for

promotion to Grade 'C' for the panel years 1994, 1995 and 1996 by the

Review D.P.C. It is not a direction of the Court to grant the petitioner

the promotion to Grade 'C' Scale-III with effect from January 2, 1995.

It appears, the petitioner is reading into the direction of the Court, a

direction to promote him, which according to this Court, is without any

merit. Six years have elapsed after the Division Bench has disposed of

the LPA giving liberty to the petitioner. Such a relief at this point of time

would be hit by delay and laches. I agree with the submission made by

the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 5, relying

upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases referred to above.

12. In the case of Digambar (supra), the Supreme Court, in para 19

has held as under:

"19. Power of the High Court to be exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution, if is discretionary, its exercise must be judicious and reasonable, admits of no controversy. It is for that reason, a person's entitlement for relief from a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, be it against the State or anybody else, even if is founded on the allegation of infringement of his legal right, has to necessarily depend upon unblameworthy conduct of the person seeking relief, and the Court refuses to grant the discretionary relief to such person in exercise of such power, when he approaches it with unclean hands or blameworthy conduct."

13. Similarly, in the case of Tarsem Singh (supra), the Supreme

Court, while considering the service related claim, held, that it can be

rejected on the ground of delay and laches and was of the following

view:

"7. To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases 5 relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to the exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the re-opening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. For example, if the issue relates to payment or re-fixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion etc., affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and

doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied. In so far as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period, the principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply. As a consequence, High Courts will restrict the consequential relief relating to arrears normally to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition."

14. Similarly, in Pundlik Jalam Patil (Dead) by LRs (supra), the

Supreme Court in para 17 has held as under:

"17. The applicant having set the machinery in motion cannot abandon it to resume it after number of years because the authority with whom it had entered into correspondence did not heed to its request to file appeals. The question is: Can the respondent/applicant in this case take advantage of its negligence, after lapse of number of years, of the decision of Government? It knew the exact grounds on which appeals could have been preferred. The law will presume that it knew of its right to file appeal against the award. Everybody is presumed to know law. It was its duty to prefer appeals before the court for consideration which it did not. There is no explanation forthcoming in this regard. The evidence on record suggest neglect of its own right for long time in preferring appeals. The court cannot enquire into belated and stale claims on the ground of equity. Delay defeats equity. The court helps those who are vigilant and `do not slumber over their rights."

15. From the perusal of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, it is

clear that the issue in question, more specifically, the prayers at 'a' to 'f'

'g', 'j' and 'k' which relate to promotion of the petitioner to Grade 'C'

Scale-III and further promotions to higher posts including the seniority

and pay fixation, if granted, would have repercussion, affecting the rights

of the third parties. In such cases, the delay would render the claim stale

and the doctrine of delay and laches would be applied. The case in hand

is such a case where the petitioner has sought promotions over and

above, to the so-called juniors. I note, even the persons senior to the

petitioner in the panel years 1994, 1995 and 1996 have been denied

promotions. The right of such persons shall also be affected. Once the

ball has been set in motion with regard to his grievance against the