Madras High Court
V.Muthuraj vs The Principal Chief Engineer ... on 7 October, 2021
W.P.(MD).No.6052 of 2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 07.10.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR
W.P.(MD).No.6052 of 2014
V.Muthuraj ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The principal Chief Engineer (WRD) -Cum-
Chief Engineer (General),
Public Works Department.
Chepauk,
Chennai-600 005.
2.The Superintending Engineer,
Building Construction and Maintenance Circle,
Public Works Department,
Tirunelveli.
3.The Executive Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Building Construction Division,
Tirunelveli-2. ...Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for
the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the
file of the 1st respondent in connection with the impugned order passed by him
in his proceedings in Letter No.S4 (2) 59327/2005 dated 08.05.2010 and quash
the same as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the first respondent to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/10
W.P.(MD).No.6052 of 2014
pass orders on the proposal sent by the second respondent vide his proceedings
in Letter No.E3/1942/2005 dated 20.03.2006 for fixing the selection grade on
par with the petitioner's junior namely, Mr.R.Sekar with effect from 02.07.1991
and pay him all monetary service benefits within the time limit may be
stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu
For Respondents : Mr.M.Linga Durai
Government Advocate
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus, to quash the impugned order passed by the first respondent dated
08.05.2010 and to direct the first respondent to pass orders on the proposal sent
by the second respondent in his proceedings dated 20.03.2006 for fixing the
selection grade on par with the petitioner's junior, namely, one Mr.R.Sekar, with
effect from 02.07.1991.
2.The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the writ petition
are as follows.
The petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Assistant
Draughts-man and joined in the first respondent department on 02.08.1971.
After successfully completing his probation on 01.08.1973, the petitioner was
promoted as Junior Draughting Officer on 05.10.1977 and again promoted as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.6052 of 2014
Draughting Officer on 10.02.1982. The petitioner was later promoted as Senior
Draughting Officer on 05.05.2000 and retired on 31.10.2004.
3.The petitioner's grievance is that his juniors were promoted as
Junior Draughting Officers and he has given a comparative statement which is
extracted for convenience:
gzp tpguk; Kjpath; ,isatu; jpU.
jpU.it.Kj;Juh[; Mu;.Nrfu;
(gp.Nj. 30.10.1946) (gp.Nj. 15.06.1954)
1.Kjypy; Nrh;e;j gjtp/ bNuru; (02.08.1971 K.g. 09.12.1977 gp.g.
ehs; cjtp tiuthsu; cjtp tiuthsu;
2.fy;tpj;jFjp v];.v];.vy;.rp. b.rp.,
buhg;l];Nkd; (rptpy;)
bNul; nl];l;
3.gzptud;Kiw 02.08.1971 K.g 09.12.1977 gp.g
nra;ag;gl;l ehs;
4.jFjpfhz; gUtk; 01.08.1973 gp.g 22.12.1979 gp.g
epiwTw;w ehs;
5. m),sepiy tiunjhopy; 05.10.1977 gp.g 07.04.1978 gp.g
mYtyuhf gjtp cau;tpy;
gzpNaw;w ehs; (tiuthsu;
juk; III)
M) gzptud;Kiw ehs; 05.10.1977 K.g 23.12.1979 K.g
6.tiunjhopy; mYtyuhfg; 10.02.1982 02.07.1981
gjtp cau;tpy; gzpNaw;w j.ngh.(nghJ) j.ngh.(nghJ)
ehs; / gjtp cau;T M.4(1)/146466/81.1 M.1(2)/95790/81.1
Miz vz; / ehs; 30.11.1981 25.06.1981
1986k; Mz;L gl;bay; gb
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.6052 of 2014
ntspaplg;gl;l jpUj;jpa
Kjepiyg; gl;baypd;gb
(25.05.1986 f;F
Kd;) ,sepiy
tiunjhopy; mYtyu;
gjtpapy; tupir vz;
8. tiunjhopy; mYtyu; 10.02.1992 K.g 02.07.1991 K.g
gjtpapy; Nju;T epiyf;F
efu;j;jg;gl;l ehs;
4.It is the case of the petitioner that the persons, who are similarly
placed like the petitioner, approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal,
obtained an order to avoid discrimination to the petitioner therein by extending
the benefit that was extended to their juniors. It is further stated that on further
appeal, at the instance of the respondents, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed
creation of supernumerary posts for accommodating the persons benefited by
the order of Tribunal. Placing reliance on the order of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, the petitioner submitted a representation before the first respondent on
13.01.2004 and started giving subsequent representations.
5.The petitioner also filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.4027 of
2005 before this Court for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first
respondent to consider and pass orders on the written representation of the
petitioner dated 13.01.2004. This Court disposed of the said writ petition on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.6052 of 2014
05.12.2005 by directing the Superintending Engineer, P.W.D., Building
Construction & Maintenance Circle, Tirunelveli, to consider the representation
of the petitioner on merits. It is thereafter, several other representations were
submitted before the respondents and in response to such representations, as
directed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition, the impugned order came to
be passed. By the impugned order, the request for considering the petitioner's
representation, to give benefit of selection grade pay on par with the petitioner's
junior, was negatived. Challenging the order of the first respondent, the above
writ petition is filed.
6.In the counter affidavit, though there is no factual dispute with
regard to the dates and events, it is contended by the first respondent that the
petitioner's request based on the promotion of the petitioner's junior before
24.11.2006 cannot be considered. Though the contentions with regard to the
petitioner's entitlement to get selection grade pay on par with his junior cannot
be neglected or ignored, the petitioner's inaction and huge delay in challenging
the promotion given to the petitioner's junior, prompt this Court to reject the
petitioner's belated claim. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had occasions to deal
with such issue.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.6052 of 2014
7.In this case, the petitioner's promotion was nearly after an year of
his junior's promotion. The petitioner, who has not challenged the promotion
given to his junior on 02.07.1981, has come forward with a representation in
the year 2004 to give him the benefit of selection grade pay on par with his
junior whose promotion was never challenged. There may be so many reasons
to promote the petitioner's junior ahead of the petitioner. The chart given by the
petitioner also shows that his junior had a Diploma in Civil Engineering.
Though the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has passed the test
which was considered equivalent to the Diploma in Civil Engineering, this
Court is not fully satisfied with his contentions in the absence of any Rules or
Executive orders. Be that as it may, the petitioner's representation submitted in
the year 2004 after a lapse of 20 years prevent this Court to grant any relief to
the petitioner in this writ petition.
8.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in an unreported Judgment in Civil
Appeal No.1577 of 2019, in the case of Union of India and others -vs-
C.Girija and others, had an occasion to deal with laches. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court considered the effect of unexplained delay and laches and refused to
grant relief by passing the following order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.6052 of 2014
“16.On the preposition as noticed above, it is clear
that the claim of the applicant for inclusion of her name in the
panel, which was issued on 09.01.2001 and for the first time
was raked up by her, by filing representation on 25.09.2007, i.e.,
after more than 06 and half years. The claim of inclusion in the
panel had become stale by that time and filing of representation
will not give any fresh cause of action. Thus, mere fact that
representation was replied by railways on 27.12.2007, a stale
claim shall not become a live claim. Both Tribunal and High
Court did not advert to this important aspect of the matter. It is
further to be noted from the material on record that after
declaration of panel on 09.01.2001, there were further selection
under 30% promotion by LDCE quota, in which the applicant
participated. In selection held in 2005 she participated and was
declared unsuccessful. With regard to her non-inclusion in panel
in 2005 selection, she also filed O.A.No.629 of 2006 before the
Tribunal, which was dismissed. After participating in
subsequent selections under 30% quota and being declared
unsuccessful, by mere filing representation on 27.09.2007 with
regard to selection made in 2001, the delay and laches shall not
be wiped out.
9.In this case also the petitioner was not the one, who filed an
application either before the State Administrative Tribunal or before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court to put-forth his grievance immediately after his junior
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.6052 of 2014
was promoted and placed above him. As a result, the petitioner ought to have at
least come to this Court or approached the Tribunal by filing a necessary
application in the year 1982 itself. Strangely, the petitioner has not raised his
little finger as against his junior's promotion, but approached this Court after a
long delay. After a long period of more than two decades, the petitioner has
come forward with a representation in the year 2004 and the present writ
petition is filed in the year 2014.
10.Having regard to the long delay, this Court is unable to entertain
the stale claim made in this writ petition. In view of the inordinate delay and
laches on the part of the petitioner, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
07.10.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet: yes / No
Sn/Ns
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized
for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the
order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.6052 of 2014
To
1.The pricipal Chief Engineer (WRD) -Cum-
Chief Engineer (General),
Public Works Department.
Chepauk,
Chennai-600 005.
2.The Superintendenting Engineer,
Building Construction and Maintenance Circle,
Public Works Department,
Tirunelveli.
3.The Executive Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Building Construction Division,
Tirunelveli-2.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.6052 of 2014
S.S. SUNDAR, J.,
Sn/Ns
W.P.(MD).No.6052 of 2014
07.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
