Delhi High Court
Hanuman Singh Poonia vs Union Of India & Ors. on 8 September, 2015
Author: S.Ravindra Bhat
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 08.09.2015
+ W.P.(C) 8572/2015 and CM Nos. 18526/2015 and 18527/2015
HANUMAN SINGH POONIA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr G.D. Gupta, Sr. Adv with
Mr Piyush Sharma, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr Rakesh Kumar, CGSC and
Mr Vinod Tiwari, Adv for respondents.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT)
%
1. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by what he considers as
incorrect implementation on the part of the Border Security Force (BSF)
with respect to the judgment of this Court dated 27.09.2002 in W.P.(C) No.
1673/1992 titled B.S. Narula vs. Union of India and Others and connected
cases. The controversy in B.S. Narula's case (supra) was with respect to the
correct interpretation of rules governing BSF. Earlier, in a Madhya Pradesh
High Court ruling (Babu Joseph vs. Union of India, W.P.(C) No.257/1980),
it was held that a centralized seniority list had to be maintained in respect of
all cadres. The seniority list was prepared in 1994 and DPC had been
conducted in 1995. The petitioner was in line for consideration for the post
of Second-in-Command. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had retired
W.P.(C) No.8572/2015 Page 1
some time in 1998. While so, the judgment of this Court was handed down
on 27.09.2002. The petitioner places considerable reliance on the judgment
to say that the action already taken--including the seniority reflected by the
BSF prior to 2002--was protected. Learned senior counsel relied upon
several extracts of the said judgment. It was submitted that in line with the
final directions, the BSF was required to take consequential action and issue
promotional orders based upon the seniority list which had been upheld.
Learned counsel submitted that despite the petitioner's best efforts,
information was not made available to him and ultimately, it was
forthcoming only in 2013 when BSF intimated to him that the previous
seniority list was cancelled.
2. The petitioner has in support of the present proceedings, produced a
copy of the order dated 05.11.2003. That order contains a long recital of the
background of the case culminating in the order of this Court on 27.09.2002.
The order recounted inter alia that this Court has stated that there cannot be
any automatic promotion to higher grade and that examination on individual
basis was to be undertaken case by case by the BSF while the issue of
promotion was to be taken up. The order, thereafter, stated as follows:-
"18. Whereas, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has disposed
of the Writ Petition No.1673/92 titled BS Narula and Others
vide judgment dated 27.09.02.
19. Whereas, as per order dated 27.09.02, the Hon'ble Court
has held that no law has been laid down in Babu Joseph's case
and Puran Singh and Others' case, and that the promotion from
SI to Subedar is to be considered as per old rules i.e. CRPF
(Fourteenth) Amendment Rules, 1967.
W.P.(C) No.8572/2015 Page 2
20. Whereas, the revised seniority granted to 357 Sub-
Inspectors in the rank of Subedar vide order dated 09.11.94 as
mentioned above was on the basis of Force level (Central)
seniority, and whereas such Central seniority is not
contemplated in the old Rules.
21. Accordingly, order No.17/49/94-Pers/BSF dated 9th Nov,
94 re-fixing seniority of 357 Sub-Inspectors in the rank of
Subedar is cancelled."
3. The record would show that the petitioner apparently represented on
22.01.2003. The BSF responded on 20.05.2003 stating that implementation
of this Court's order was under progress. The petitioner then relies upon
subsequent representations from May, 2013 onwards and the letter dated
01.04.2013 to say that the matter was alive and that he was ultimately
informed on the later date about the adverse order. Whilst this Court
highlighted the need to protect the status quo, at the same time, an extensive
review of the seniority position was directed. The declaration and judgment
are clearly to the effect that promotion to higher position was not automatic.
In that sense, the Court was alive to the exercise required to be undertaken
by the respondent given the mandate of the rules. Such being the case
though the petitioner ultimately represented to the BSF in January, 2003, the
fact remains that the implementation was, in fact, done on 05.11.2003. The
final paragraph of the order stated that the order dated 09.11.1994 which re-
fixed the seniority of 357 Sub-Inspectors was cancelled/withdrawn.
Considering that the petitioner had already retired in 1998 and was, in fact,
made aware of the possibilities of a comprehensive review--which entail
the further possibility of his losing seniority--the Court is of the opinion
that the present petition is barred by delay and laches.
W.P.(C) No.8572/2015 Page 3
4. The petitioner's endeavour to contend that the issue was kept alive by
continuous correspondence between the years 2003 to 2014 is unpersuasive.
The record would show that the petitioner had initially written two letters in
2003, after when there was a lag of almost a decade. He seems to have
picked up the threads only in 2013 and engaged the respondents in
correspondence. S.S. Rathore vs. Madhya Pradesh, 1990 AIR SC 10 is an
authority for the proposition that when a suitor or litigant merely continues
to correspond with the authorities, there is no extension of the period for
approaching the Court. Given these facts, especially that the petitioner had
retired from the service 17 years ago and that the seniority list/order
impugned in this case was issued 12 years ago, we find that the case is
hopelessly time barred.
The writ petition is consequently dismissed on the ground of delay
and laches.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
(JUDGE)
DEEPA SHARMA
(JUDGE)
SEPTEMBER 08, 2015
BG
W.P.(C) No.8572/2015 Page 4
