Delhi High Court
Tarkeshwr Jha vs Food Corporation Of India & Ors. on 12 April, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: April 12, 2018
+ W.P. (C) 7009/2016
TARKESHWR JHA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajnish Kumar Jha, Advocate
Versus
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mrs. Harvinder Oberoi, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
1. Quashing of order of 18th February, 2016 (Annexure P-8) and grant
of Selection Grade Scale w.e.f. 1st December, 1996, is sought by
petitioner. Vide impugned order of 18th February, 2016 (Annexure P-8),
petitioner's Representation for grant of Selection Grade Scale in the post
of Assistant Grade-I, has been declined by respondents, as petitioner was
promoted on 27th February, 2001 and there was no vacancy prior thereto.
2. It is the case of petitioner that he became eligible for grant of
Selection Grade Scale w.e.f. 1st December, 1996 and eight of his juniors
have been granted Selection Grade Scale. Petitioner's counsel submits
that in the Zonal Seniority List of Assistant Grade-I, petitioner's name is
shown at Sl. No. 81 whereas his juniors figure at Serial No.134 onwards
but still they have been granted the benefit of Selection Grade Scale.
3. In paragraph No.10 of the counter affidavit filed by respondents, it
is maintained that upto the year 1998 there was no vacancy for filling
Selection Grade Scale posts and in the year 1999, persons senior to
petitioner were granted Selection Grade Scale, whose details are
provided. It is clarified by respondents' in the counter affidavit that
Selection Grade is awarded to 30% employees out of the sanctioned
strength and not upon completion of twelve years of service. According
to respondents, petitioner did not come within 30% strength and so, he
could not be granted Selection Grade.
4. Learned counsel for respondents submits that this petition is barred
by delay and laches, as there is unexplained delay of 15 years in filing the
writ petition. Objection regarding territorial jurisdiction is also taken by
respondents' counsel by pointing out that the Representation was made
by petitioner from Bihar and infact, petitioner is a resident of Bihar and
he had retired from the office of respondent-FCI in Bihar.
5. To counter the objection of territorial jurisdiction, learned counsel
for petitioner places reliance upon decision of a Division Bench of this
Court in M.P. State Mining Corporation Ltd. Vs. Sanjeev Bhaskar & Ors.
2011 (123) DRJ 455 (DB). It is submitted that there is no delay in filing
the writ petition, as in the year 2014, eight persons who were junior to
petitioner, were granted Selection Grade. To submit so, attention of this
Court is drawn to Office Order of 28th July, 2014 (Annexure P-3), which
contains the name of officials who have been placed in Selection Grade.
It is submitted that the Representation was made by petitioner in January,
2016 and so, there is no inordinate delay in filing writ petition.
6. In the rejoinder filed by petitioner, it is asserted that respondents'
plea of vacancy is untenable, as the placement in Selection Grade has to
be on seniority basis and since petitioner was senior to the above referred
eight persons, who have been granted Selection Grade in the year 2014,
therefore, petitioner ought to have been granted selection grade in the
year 1996.
7. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the vacancy position
was not reviewed by the competent authority and so, petitioner's
entitlement to Selection Grade cannot be negated.
8. According to respondent's counsel, the purpose to grant Selection
Grade is to overcome the stagnancy and in the instant case, petitioner was
promoted in the year 2001, whereas his juniors have been granted
Selection Grade in the year 2014. It is relevant to note that petitioner's
name was forwarded for consideration vide letter of 13th July, 2007
(Annexure P-2).
9. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned order of 18 th February,
2016 (Annexure P-8), material on record and the decision cited, I find that
the question of territorial jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter. It is
true that petitioner is a resident of Bihar and Zonal Office in Bihar had
the jurisdiction to consider the case of petitioner for grant of Selection
Grade but since petitioner had made Representation to respondent-FCI in
Delhi on 17th May, 2016, therefore, part of cause of action arose in Delhi
also. Thus, this petition is being entertained while repelling the objection
of territorial jurisdiction.
10. Petitioner's name for grant of Selection Grade was forwarded vide
letter of 13th July, 2007 (Annexure P-2) and it was to be considered by the
concerned Zonal Office. However, petitioner had waited for more than
seven years before approaching the Court for the relief claimed. It is
aptly said that those who sleep over their rights, lose them. Delay of more
than seven years remains unexplained. Petitioner was not required to
wait for a long period of more than seven years and then to file a
Representation, after his juniors have been granted Selection Grade in the
year 2014. It is so said because petitioner's entitlement to Selection
Grade was w.e.f. 1st December, 1996. Petitioner ought to have sought
review of vacancies in the year 2007 itself, as the entitlement to
Selection Grade is not upon completion of twelve years of service alone
but it is dependent upon the available vacancies, as only 30% of the
sanctioned strength can be granted Selection Grade. In such a situation,
the delay defeats the right of petitioner to claim Selection Grade.
Otherwise also, averments made in paragraph No.10 of the counter
affidavit regarding grant of Selection Grade to persons senior to the
petitioner, does not stand controverted and so, petitioner does not have
any case on merits.
11. In the light of aforesaid, this petition is dismissed being not only hit
by delay and laches, but even on merits.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
APRIL 12, 2018
r
