Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1033 (MP)

Pushpa v. State of M. P.

2005-09-28

A.K.SHRIVASTAVA

body2005
JUDGMENT This petition was originally filed before the State Administrative Tribunal at Jabalpur on 27.7.1990. However, on account of abolition of the Tribunal, this petition has been received by this Court for its adjudication. The original petitioner is Balkrishna Ramshankar Joshi. After his retirement from the post of Deputy Collector, he filed original application before the Tribunal seeking following reliefs: (i) That the applicant be granted proforma promotion from a date earlier than his junior. (ii) His pay as Deputy Collector be fixed taking into consideration the date of proforma promotion and arrears of pay and allowances be made. (iii) That his pension and gratuity be revised in accordance with the revised pay. (iv) Costs of this petition. (v) Such other direction as the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit. After the death of original petitioner, namely, Balkrishna Ramshankar Joshi an application was filed on behalf of present petitioners for their substitution which was allowed and present petitioners were brought on record. For convenience, hereinafter in this order the petitioner would mean the original petitioner, namely, Balkrishna Ramshankar Joshi. The petitioner filed this petition seeking relief to promote him a date before his juniors were promoted. The contention of Shri Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner ought to have been promoted in the year 1978 on the post of Deputy Collector. However, his candidature was considered in the DPC which met in the year 1982, but on account of pendency of some departmental enquiry against him, his result was kept in a sealed cover and ultimately on 19.12.1986 he was promoted on the post of Deputy Collector. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner never faced any departmental enquiry and in that regard the petitioner has filed an affidavit. Thus, the contention of learned counsel is that the persons who were junior to him and whose names are referred in Annexure-H dated 24th April 1986 have been promoted to the post of Deputy Collector and, therefore, the petitioner is also entitled for promotion a day earlier to 24.4.1986 or at least from this date. On the other hand, Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Dy. Government Advocate submits that the DPC which was convened in the year 1978 in order to promote suitable candidates to the post of Deputy Collector, did not find the petitioner fit for promotion. On the other hand, Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Dy. Government Advocate submits that the DPC which was convened in the year 1978 in order to promote suitable candidates to the post of Deputy Collector, did not find the petitioner fit for promotion. In the DPC which was convened in the year 1982 the candidature of the petitioner was considered and his result was kept in a sealed cover and ultimately on 19.12.1986 he was promoted to the post of Deputy Collector. The contention of learned Dy. Government Advocate is that after having promoted on the post of Deputy Collector on 19.12.1986, the petitioner never challenged the action of respondent promoting the persons whose names are referred in Annexure-H dated 24.4.1986. After the retirement of the petitioner this petition has been filed and, therefore, no relief should be granted to the petitioner. After having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be dismissed. There is no merit in the contention of Shri Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner that on account of petitioner's posting in a remote area in Jagdalpur he was unable to collect relevant data and facts, in order to challenge the promotion. The petitioner could ask the department to provide him the gradation list, but there is no averment either in the petition or in the rejoinder that the petitioner ever asked the department to provide relevant data and the same was not provided to im. No document in that regard has been filed by the petitioner. No doubt the petitioner was submitting representations in regard to give promotion to him with retrospective date. However, this fact cannot be marginalized and blinked away that the petitioner never challenged the order Annexure-H dated 24.4.1986. Even today he has not challenged the said order. In the case of PS. Sadasivaswamy v. State a Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 2271 the apex Court in para 2 has held as under: "2. The main grievance of the appellant is that the 2nd respondent who was junior to him as Assistant Engineer was promoted as Divisional Engineer in 1957 by relaxing the relevant rules regarding the length of service necessary for promotion as Divisional Engineer and that his claim for a similar relaxation was not considered at that time. The main grievance of the appellant is that the 2nd respondent who was junior to him as Assistant Engineer was promoted as Divisional Engineer in 1957 by relaxing the relevant rules regarding the length of service necessary for promotion as Divisional Engineer and that his claim for a similar relaxation was not considered at that time. The learned Judge of the Madras High Court who heard the writ petition was of the view that the relaxation of the rules in favour of the 2nd respondent without considering the appellant's case was arbitrary. In view of the statement on behalf of the Government that such relaxation was given only in "1e case of overseas scholars, which statement was not controverter, it is possible to agree with the view of the learned Judge. Be that as it may, if the appellant was aggrieved by it he should have approached the Court even in the year 1957 after the two representations made by him had failed to produce any result. One cannot sleep over the matter and come to the Com1 questioning that relaxation in the year 1971. There is the further fact that even after respondents 3 and 4 were promoted as Divisional Engineers over the head of the appellant he did not come to the Court questioning it. There was a third opportunity for him to have come to the Court when respondents 2 to 4 were again promoted as Superintending Engineers over the l1ead of the appellant. After fourteen long years because of the tempting prospect of the Chief Engineership he has come to the Court. In effect he wants to unscramble a scrambled egg. It is very difficult for the Government to consider whether any relaxation of the rules should have been made in favour of the appellant in the year 1957. The conditions that were prevalent in 1957 cannot be reproduced now. In any case as the Government had decided as a matter of policy, as they were entitled to do, not to relax the rules in favour of any· except overseas scholars it will be wholly pointless to direct them to consider the appellant's case as if nothing had happened after 1957. 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 their merits deserved their promotion over the head of the appellant. 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 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 land wise exercise of discretion for the Courts to refuse to exercise their extraordinary powers under Article 226 in the case or persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the Court to. put forward 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." Thus, by placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of P.S Sadasivaswamy (supra), I am of the view that the relief which the petitioner is seeking cannot be allowed. Apart from what I have stated hereinabove, the petitioner has also not impleaded the persons who are junior to him and were promoted on the post of Deputy Collector earlier to him. The petitioner has also not sought quashment of order Annexure-H dated 24.4.1986 by which certain persons, whose names are referred in this document have been promoted. Thus, according to me, no case is made out in favour of the petitioner. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.