Gujarat High Court
Laxmanbhai Kavjibhai Bhagora vs State Of Gujarat on 19 June, 2024
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1799/2019 ORDER DATED: 19/06/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1799 of 2019
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7594 of 2008
With
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1 of 2008
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1799 of 2019
==========================================================
LAXMANBHAI KAVJIBHAI BHAGORA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HARDIK H PANDIT(5820) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR RITURAJ M MEENA(3224) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT
Date : 19/06/2024
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the
judgment and order dated 24.09.2008 passed by the learned
Single Judge rejecting the writ petition.
2. It appears that the Letters Patent Appeal was initially
filed being Letters Patent Appeal (Stamp Number) No. 1559 of
2008 which was dismissed for non-removal of office objection.
The same was restored in the year 2014 by the Co-ordinate
bench of this Court after condoning the delay. The petitioner is
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1799/2019 ORDER DATED: 19/06/2024
undefined
claiming the benefit if seniority and grant of deemed date to
him on the post of Divisional Account w.e.f. 06.09.1993.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Hardik Pandit appearing for the
appellant has submitted that the petitioner is entitled to the
promotional post of Divisional Account way back in the year
1994 onwards on roaster basis, however, he has been denied
the same. It is submitted by him that the respondent did not
consider his case for promotion though he was entitled. He
submitted that the seniority list of the Divisional Account was
published on 13.08.1998 and accordingly since he was denied
the promotion and seniority, he approached the respondent
authorities in the year 2006 by making a representation on
07.10.2006. It is submitted that in case he is granted deemed
date of promotion he would also further be entitled to
promotion and accordingly it is urged that the action of the
respondents may be quashed and set aside and he may be
granted deemed date in the seniority w.e.f. 06.09.1993 in the
post of Divisional Accountant.
4. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Meena appearing for the
respondent has submitted that the judgment and order passed
by learned Single Judge does not require interference after
such a long period. It is submitted that in fact the petitioner is
claiming deemed date of promotion on the basis of the
seniority list which was published on 13.08.1998 and for the
first time he approached in the year 2006 claiming deemed
date of promotion and filed the writ petition in the year 2008.
Thus, it is urged that the present appeal may be rejected.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1799/2019 ORDER DATED: 19/06/2024
undefined
5. We have considered the rival submissions. The facts
which are not in dispute is that the appellant was appointed
on 14.06.1976 in the respondent department as Junior Clerk.
Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Deputy Accountant
on 04.07.1988. He was further promoted to the post of
Divisional Accountant on 29.11.1996. Thereafter, he demanded
deemed date by making a representation on 03.07.1997. The
deemed date requested by him was of 06.09.1993 in the post
of Divisional Accountant. It appears that the appellant
thereafter made a detailed representation on 07.10.2006. Two
years thereafter he filed the writ petition in the year 2008.
6. The learned Single Judge after perusing the relevant
documents and records has observed thus:-
"6. This Court has perused the documents placed on
record by both the sides. As a result of hearing and
perusal of records, it is clear that the In this regard, it
will be relevant to peruse decision of the Apex Court in
the case of Shiv Dass (supra) wherein the Apex Court
relying upon the decision reported in AIR 1987 SC 251
has upheld the view that if there is inordinate delay on
the part of the petitioner and such delay is not
satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to
intervene and grant relief in exercise of its writ
jurisdiction. It was stated that this rule is premised on a
number of factors. The High Court does not ordinarily
permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy
because it is likely to cause confusion and public
inconvenience and bring in its train new injustices, and
if writ jurisdiction is exercised after unreasonable delay
it may have the effect of inflicting not only hardship
and inconvenience but also injustice on third parties. It
was pointed out that when writ jurisdiction is invoked,
unexplained delay coupled with the creation of third
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1799/2019 ORDER DATED: 19/06/2024
undefined
party rights in the meantime is an important factor
which also weighs with the High Court in deciding
whether or not to exercise such jurisdiction.
7. As a result of hearing and perusal of records, it also
appears that the petitioner has been comparing himself
with the promotion of another individual who was
posted in Saurashtra Zone. The question of giving
promotion from the deemed date does not arise as the
petitioner has not been superseded by a junior in
Gujarat Zone and that the promotion from the deemed
date could have been granted only if a junior from
Gujarat Zone would have superseded the petitioner in
order to avoid any injustice to the petitioner. On this
ground also, granting the prayer of the petitioner would
amount to chaos within the board as the very purpose
of maintaining separate lists would be frustrated and the
same would affect hundreds of other employees.
8. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to
grant the prayers prayed for in the present petition at
such a belated stage more particularly when there is no
merits in the same. No interference is caused in the
present petition and the same requires to be dismissed.
For the foregoing reasons, petition stands dismissed. No
order as to costs."
7. The learned Single Judge has thus observed that the
question of giving promotion from the deemed date on the
post of Divisional Accountant does not arise since the appellant
was never superseded by any junior in the Gujarat Zone and
the seniority of both the zones were different. It is observed
that the promotion from the deemed date could have been
granted if a junior from Gujarat Zone had superseded the
appellant, however, that is not the case. Both the zones i.e.
Gujarat Zone and Saurashtra Zone are having separate seniority
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1799/2019 ORDER DATED: 19/06/2024
undefined
list. The learned Single Judge has also considered the aspect of
delay since the appellant had approached after considerable
delay in claiming the deemed date of promotion.
8. It is also noticed by us that the appellant has been
lethargic in pursuing the present appeal and though the appeal
was filed in the year 2008 he did not pursue the same. It was
dismissed for non-removal of office objection and it has been
subsequently been restored in the year 2014 and thereafter
though the matter has been listed on numerous occasion the
appellant did not think it fit to pursue the Letters Patent
Appeal and the same appears to have been registered in the
year 2019. Looking to the span of period from the year 1993
for the which the deemed date is being claimed and the
underwent period, at this stage, we would not like to interfere
with the decision of the learned Single Judge. It is also noticed
that if any prayer is granted then the same would further
given rise to claim of promotion, seniority etc and would also
affect the other candidates who are placed in the seniority list.
9. Thus the appeal fails and the same is rejected.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
(MAUNA M. BHATT,J)
SHRIJIT PILLAI/09
