Buta Ram vs State Of Punjab And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 17191 P&H

                                                  Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:128944-DB



                                                            2023:PHHC:128944-DB

LPA-1023-2023 ( O&M )                                                   -1-

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH

                        CM-2611-LPA-2023 in/and LPA-1023-2023 ( O&M )
                                           Date of decision : 05.10.2023

Buta Ram
                                                                .......Appellant
                                     Versus
State of Punjab and others
                                                                ....Respondents

CORAM:        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI SHANKER JHA, CHIEF JUSTICE
              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI


Present:      Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate,
              for the appellant.

              Mr. Arjun Sheoran, DAG, Punjab.

                              ****

RAVI SHANKER JHA, CHIEF JUSTICE ( Oral )

CM-2611-LPA-2023

For the reasons set out in the application, duly supported by

an affidavit, delay of 16 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

Application is, accordingly, allowed.

LPA-1023-2023

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved

by the order and judgment dated 21.04.2023 passed by the learned Single

Bench, dismissing the writ petition (CWP No. 8343 of 2023) filed by

him, seeking the following relief :

"i) issue a writ, order or direction especially in the nature of certiorari quashing Punjab Government office order dated 11.8.1999 bearing endorsement No. 21/25/94-4-BEII/4354-57 dated 24.8.1999 (Annexure P-1) and grant notional promotion to the petitioner on

1 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:128944-DB

2023:PHHC:128944-DB

LPA-1023-2023 ( O&M ) -2-

the post of Sub Divisional Engineer on regular basis w.e.f. 1.1.1989 against reserve point lying vacant with all consequential benefits instead of 1.1.1995 at Roster Point No.51 in view of information supplied on 12.4.2019 (Annexure P 7); or in the alternative, to take a decision on representation dated 29.5.2019 (Annexure P-10) followed by legal notice dated 19.11.2019 (Annexure P 11);

Or In the alternative to take a decision on representation dated 29.5.2019 followed by legal notice dated 19.11.2019 (Annexures P-10 & P-11)."

2 Learned Single Judge has observed that the appellant is

claiming notional promotion as Sub Divisional Engineer with effect from

01.01.1989, which fact has also been stated in the prayer clause, quoted

above.

3. Admittedly and evidently, for the first time, the appellant

approached this Court by filing CWP No. 1874 of 2019, which was

disposed of with a direction to the authorities to consider and take a

decision on his representation dated 16.05.2018. Thereafter, the appellant

submitted another representation dated 29.05.2019 and filed CWP No.

32010 of 2019, which was withdrawn by him on 05.11.2019 with liberty

to pursue his aforesaid representation before the authorities, claiming

retrospective promotion to the post of Sub Divisional Engineer. In such

circumstances, learned Single Bench has dismissed the petition filed by

the appellant on the ground of delay and laches of 24 years in

approaching this Court, inasmuch as he is claiming benefit for being

granted notional promotion to the post of Sub Divisional Engineer, with

effect from 01.01.1989, which was denied to him at that point of time and

2 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:128944-DB

2023:PHHC:128944-DB

LPA-1023-2023 ( O&M ) -3-

was never challenged by him. Quite apart from the above, in view of a

decision of the Supreme Court rendered in C. Jacob Vs. Director of

Geology and Mining and another, (2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 115,

no direction, at this stage, can be issued to the authorities to consider the

representation of the appellant, as the said claim is a dead claim and

cannot be revived after such a long time on account of in-action on the

part of the appellant. There is no cogent or acceptable explanation for the

delay on the part of the appellant. In such circumstances, we do not find

any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order and judgment passed by

the learned Single Judge.

4. Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

( RAVI SHANKER JHA ) CHIEF JUSTICE

( ARUN PALLI ) JUDGE October 05, 2023 ndj

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:128944-DB

3 of 3