TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (8) TMI 1161
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....In the year 1983 a Selection Committee was constituted for making promotion to Group II posts on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness from amongst the employees of Group III posts and in the said selection process the Respondents as well as Madhav Singh Tadagi were promoted on regular basis in Group II posts. After regular promotion was made, a seniority list was finalized in respect of promotional cadre and the Respondents were shown senior to Madhav Singh Tadagi. The final seniority list was issued on 12.2.1994. 4. On 9.11.2000, under U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000 the State of Uttaranchal (presently State of Uttarakhand) was created. The Respondents as well as Madhav Singh Tadagi were allocated to the State of Uttarakhand. On 14.10.2003, the Respondents filed a claim petition No. 154 of 2003 before the Public Services Tribunal of Uttarakhand at Dehradun (for short "the tribunal") claiming that they were entitled to promotion from SAS Group III to SAS Group II with effect from 15.11.1983 the date on which the junior was promoted and, accordingly, to get their pay fixed along with other consequential benefits, namely, arrears of salary and interest thereof. Be it noted, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he junior employee from 15.11.1983 till 14.10.2003. It is her further submission that the Respondents really cannot have any grievance in praesenti as said Madhav Singh Tadagi's promotion from 1983 has been cancelled during the pendency of the special leave petition by the competent authority of the State Government, and quite apart from that when the junior employee was only given ad hoc promotion and continued in the said post but not conferred seniority in the promotional grade when regular promotions took place in 1989. The learned Counsel for the State would further submit that the grant of notional promotion along with other consequential benefits to the claimant-Respondents solely on the ground that the junior functioned in the promotional post from a prior date, is not justified. 9. Mr. Gaurav Goel, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, in oppugnation to the aforesaid preponements, would contend that the Respondents had raised their grievance by bringing it to the notice of the Competent Authority in the year 1984 but they fell in deaf ears. Thereafter, they submitted number of representations but when sphinx like silence was maintained by the State which is t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ven for ad hoc promotion and a junior cannot be allowed to march over him solely on the ground that the promotion granted is ad hoc in nature. Needless to emphasise that if the senior is found unfit for some reason or other, the matter would be quite different. But, if senior incumbents are eligible as per the rules and there is no legal justification to ignore them, the employer cannot extend the promotional benefit to a junior on ad hoc basis at his whim or caprice. That is not permissible. 13. We have no trace of doubt that the Respondents could have challenged the ad hoc promotion conferred on the junior employee at the relevant time. They chose not to do so for six years and the junior employee held the promotional post for six years till regular promotion took place. The submission of the learned Counsel for the Respondents is that they had given representations at the relevant time but the same fell in deaf ears. It is interesting to note that when the regular selection took place, they accepted the position solely because the seniority was maintained and, thereafter, they knocked at the doors of the tribunal only in 2003. It is clear as noon day that the cause of action ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Director v. K. Thangappan and Anr. (2006) 4 SCC 322, the Court took note of the factual position and laid down that when nearly for two decades the Respondent-workmen therein had remained silent mere making of representations could not justify a belated approach. 16. In State of Orissa v. Pyarimohan Samantaray (1977) 3 SCC 396 it has been opined that making of repeated representations is not a satisfactory explanation of delay. The said principle was reiterated in State of Orissa v. Arun Kumar Patnaik (1976) 3 SCC 579. 17. In Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Ghanshyam Dass (2) and Ors. (2011) 4 SCC 374, a three-Judge Bench of this Court reiterated the principle stated in Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana (1977) 6 SCC 538 and proceeded to observe that as the Respondents therein preferred to sleep over their rights and approached the tribunal in 1997, they would not get the benefit of the order dated 7.7.1992. 18. In State of T.N. v. Seshachalam (2007) 10 SCC 137, this Court, testing the equality clause on the bedrock of delay and laches pertaining to grant of service benefit, has ruled thus: ...filing of representations alone would not save the period of limitation. Delay or lach....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....may not be unsettlement of the settled position but, a pregnant one, the Respondents chose to sleep like Rip Van Winkle and got up from their slumber at their own leisure, for some reason which is fathomable to them only. But such fathoming of reasons by oneself is not countenanced in law. Any one who sleeps over his right is bound to suffer. As we perceive neither the tribunal nor the High Court has appreciated these aspects in proper perspective and proceeded on the base that a junior was promoted and, therefore, the seniors cannot be denied the promotion. Remaining oblivious to the factum of delay and laches and granting relief is contrary to all settled principles and even would not remotely attract the concept of discretion. We may hasten to add that the same may not be applicable in all circumstances where certain categories of fundamental rights are infringed. But, a stale claim of getting promotional benefits definitely should not have been entertained by the tribunal and accepted by the High Court. True it is, notional promotional benefits have been granted but the same is likely to affect the State exchequer regard being had to the fixation of pay and the pension. Thes....