Court dismisses delayed petition on pay fixation and pension revision for Selection Grade employees.

The court dismissed the writ petition seeking quashing of an order on pay fixation and entitlement to arrears of increment and pension revision for employees appointed to Selection Grade. The petitioner's significant delay in approaching the court, waiting several years after a colleague's case concluded, led to the dismissal. Emphasizing the importance of timely legal action, especially in matters affecting service rights, the court highlighted that delayed petitions based on past cases set a problematic precedent and discourage prompt dispute resolution. The petitioner's prolonged inaction precluded relief, resulting in the dismissal of the petition without costs.

---

---

Issues:
1. Quashing of order regarding pay fixation for employees appointed to Selection Grade.
2. Entitlement to arrears of increment and pension revision.
3. Delay in approaching the court for seeking remedy.

Analysis:
1. The writ petition sought to quash an order related to pay fixation for employees appointed to Selection Grade between specific dates. The petitioner's counsel argued that a previous High Court order provided a cause of action for the present petition. It was claimed that the petitioner was entitled to arrears of increment and pension revision based on certain memorandums and tribunal orders. The petitioner's service history and pension details were outlined to support the claim. However, the court noted that the petitioner should have raised concerns in a timely manner and not waited for several years after a colleague's case concluded. The court emphasized the importance of approaching the appropriate forum promptly when service conditions are affected, rather than relying on delayed litigation based on previous cases.

2. The petitioner, a retired government servant, filed the writ petition at the age of 68, seeking arrears of increment from a specific date. The court highlighted that the petitioner, now around 74 years old, had significantly delayed in asserting his rights. The court stressed that such delays cannot be condoned, especially when the petitioner was well-versed in rules and regulations due to his previous role as an Inspector of Central Excise. The judgment emphasized the need for aggrieved individuals to approach the court within a reasonable period and not wait for years before seeking remedies. The court concluded that the petitioner's prolonged inaction precluded him from seeking relief at a later stage, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition without costs.

3. In summary, the judgment underscores the importance of timely legal action in addressing grievances related to service conditions. It highlights that delayed petitions based on past cases set a problematic precedent and discourage prompt resolution of disputes. The court's decision to dismiss the petition due to the petitioner's significant delay in seeking remedy serves as a reminder of the necessity for timely legal recourse in matters affecting service rights and entitlements.

---