Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dalip Singh And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 20 March, 2024
Author: G.S. Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040116-DB
Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:040116-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
109 LPA-266-2024(O&M)
Dalip Singh & another ......Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Haryana & others ......Respondent(s)
(2) LPA-267-2024(O&M)
Dalip Singh & another ......Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Haryana & others ......Respondent(s)
Decided on : 20.03.2024
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
Present: Mr.P.R.Yadav, Advocate for the appellant (s).
Mr.Deepak Balyan, Addl.A.G., Haryana.
*****
G.S. Sandhawalia, Acting Chief Justice (Oral)
CM-609-LPA-2024 in LPA-266-2024 &
CM-610-LPA-2024 in LPA-267-2024
1. Applications for condoning the delay of 56 & 120 days in
filing the present appeals is allowed in view of the averments made in the
applications duly supported by affidavit of appellant No.1. Delay of 56
and 120 days in filing the appeals is hereby condoned.
2. CMs stand disposed of.
LPA-266 & 267-2024
3. Consideration in the present appeals is to the judgment dated
07.08.2023 passed by the Learned Single Judge in CWP-2478-1996 and
CWP-10705-2006 wherein the Learned Single Judge has repelled the
challenge to promotion of the private-respondents as Assistant Registrars
as well as to the post of Deputy Registrar.
4. The reasoning which weighed with the Learned Single Judge
was that the private-respondents were absorbed as Statistical Assistants
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040116-DB
LPA-266 & 267-2024 (O&M)
which was separate cadre and there was no challenge to the same by the
appellants as they were working as Inspectors with the Cooperative
Department, Haryana which were governed by the Punjab State
Co-oprative Subordinate Services Rules, 1936. Challenge was thus made
for the first time in the year 1996 and it was noticed that the absorption
was done in the year 1980 and thus, keeping in view the fact that it is a
feeder cadre post to the post of Assistant Registrar and there was no joint
inter se seniority of the Statistical Assistants and that of Inspectors, the
claim that the writ petitioners were senior to the private-respondents was
repelled.
5. It was noticed that there was no representation or contest to
the absorption of the private-respondents to the post of Statistical
Assistants and it was done 15 years prior to the filing of the writ petitions
and they could not raise any grievance. It is to be kept in mind that as per
the pleadings, it is the claim of the writ petitioners that they joined on
02.04.1973 and 02.04.1974 whereas the private-respondents who were
working as Sub-Inspectors since 1962-1964. It has also come on record
that the said private-respondents had been working on the said posts from
1962-1964 as Sub-Inspectors.
6. The Learned Single Judge further kept in mind that Haryana
Cooperation Department Group C (Executive) Rules, 1980 (for short, the
'1980 Rules') had come into force and thereafter, the amendment had been
made in the Punjab State Cooperative Services Class-II Rules, 1958 which
were applicable to the State of Haryana which provided further avenue of
promotion to Inspectors and Statistical Assistants who had the necessary
experience of 7 years to the post of Assistant Regisrtrar. It is also the
specific case of the State that when the applications were invited for filling
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040116-DB
LPA-266 & 267-2024 (O&M)
up the posts of Statistical Assistants, the writ petitioners were not willing
to join the said posts as no promotional avenues was available except for
one post of Statistical Officer.
7. It is only by virtue of the amendment made in 1980, the
avenue opened up. It is thus apparent that the writ petition was filed in
1996 at that point of time when the appellants realized that there was
better scope for promotion for the persons who had opted for the
Statistical Assistants and the private-respondents had stolen a march over
them while opting for the said post at an earlier point of time to which they
had never objected. Thus, the objection of the State that the writ petition
was filed after more than 16 years, at a belated stage, is well justified,
which fact has also been kept in mind by the Learned Single Judge. The
Apex Court in P.S.Sadasivaswamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu 1976(1)
SLR 53 considered the question of limitation in service matters and held
that entertaining such petitions which are patently stale impede the
working of the Courts. It was held as under:-
"2. .............Not only respondent 2 but also respondents 3 and 4
who were the appellant's juniors became Divisional Engineers in
1957 apparently on the ground that their merits deserved their
promotion over the head of the appellant. He did not question it.
Nor did he question the promotion of his juniors as Superintending
Engineers over his head. He could have come to the Court on every
one of these three occasions. A person aggrieved by an order of
promoting a junior over his head should approach the Court at least
within six months or at the most a year of such promotion. It is not
that there is any period of limitation for the Courts to exercise their
powers under Article 226 nor is it that there can never be a case
where the Courts cannot interfere in a matter after the passage of a
certain length of time. But it would be a sound and wise exercise of
discretion for the Courts to refuse to exercise their extra-ordinary
powers under Article 226 in the case of persons who do not
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040116-DB
LPA-266 & 267-2024 (O&M)
approach it expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow
things to happen and then approach the Court to put for-ward stale
claims and try to unsettle settled matters- The petitioner's petition
should, therefore have been dismissed in limine. Entertaining such
petitions is a waste of time of the court. It clogs the work of the
Court and impedes the work of the court in considering legitimate
grievances as also its normal work. We consider that the High court
was right in dismissing the appellant's petition as well as the
appeal.
3. This appeal is dismissed with costs."
8. In P. Chitharanja Menon & others Vs. A. Balakrishnan
and others 1977 (2) SLR 289, a three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex
Court held that once the legality of the promotion made in 1962 had not
been challenged then the validity of the Government order in 1969 could
not be challenged by filing a writ petition in the year 1972. The present
case is also somewhat similar.
9. The Apex Court in Shiba Shankar Mohapatra Vs. State of
Orissa 2011 (1) RSJ 624 has held that in seniority matters, delay should
not be beyond a period of 3 years and the reasons for not approaching the
Court should be explained. The relevant observation reads as under:
"29. Thus, in view of the above, the settled legal proposition that
emerges is that once the seniority had been fixed and it remains in
existence for a reasonable period, any challenge to the same should
not be entertained. In K.R. Mudgal (supra), this Court has laid
down, in crystal clear words that a seniority list which remains in
existence for 3 to 4 years unchallenged, should not be disturbed.
Thus, 3-4 years is a reasonable period for challenging the seniority
and in case someone agitates the issue of seniority beyond this
period, he has to explain the delay and laches in approaching the
adjudicatory forum, by furnishing satisfactory explanation."
10. The second round of litigation had been ensued in the year
2006 when promotions were made of the private-respondents to the post of
Deputy Registrar which had also been repelled by the Learned Single
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040116-DB
LPA-266 & 267-2024 (O&M)
Judge by noting that when the first challenge has been repelled then the
consequent challenge has also to be rejected, to which principle, we can
only give our concurrence in view of the strict principles of delay and
laches which apply in service law regarding the issue of promotions.
11. The stand of the private respondents was that there were no
rules regulating promotion to the post of Statistical Assistant and they
were promoted in the year 1980 before the 1980 Rules came into force.
Specific plea was taken that the duties of Inspectors and Statistical
Assistant were complimentary and there was no promotional avenues
available and it was provided for the first time, as noticed above on
09.08.1995 (Annexure P-3). It had specifically been submitted that the
writ petitioners never preferred to become Statistical Assistants and that
both the cadres of Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors were different.
12. Keeping in view the above discussion, we are of the
considered opinion that the judgment of the Learned Single Judge does not
suffer from any infirmity especially keeping in view the fact that the issue
was sought to be raked up at a belated stage as recorded above.
Resultantly, finding no ground to interfere in the well reasoned judgment
of the Learned Single Judge, the present appeals are hereby dismissed.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
20.03.2024 (LAPITA BANERJI)
Sailesh JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether Reportable : No
5 of 5
