Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 740 (JK)

Qasim Dar v. State & Ors.

2012-11-30

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2012
1. Petitioner seeks writ of mandamus in the name of respondents to the effect that they be commanded to promote the petitioner as Patwari; to disburse the charge allowance w.e.f. 18th August, 1994 and to place petitioner in the list of Senior Guage Reader w.e.f. 30th July, 1994. 2. During the pendency of the writ petition, learned counsel for petitioner has given up the relief 'a' and 'b', therefore, the writ petition survives for reliefs as sought for in clause 'c' and 'd'. 3. Let us, at the very outset, have a look at the reliefs as sought for at clause 'C' and 'D', thus:- "C. Issue a Writ/Order/Direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby commanding the Respondents to pay/disburse the charge allowance of Patwari in favour of the Petitioner since 18.08.1994; and/or, D. any other Writ/Order/Direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper to issue in the attendant facts and circumstances of the case, be also issued in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondents in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience." 4. The petitioner seeks disbursement of pay and release the grade of Senior Guage Reader w.e.f. 30th June, 1994 on the ground that he stands promoted by the competent authority in the year 1994 vide order No. 6-B of 1994 dated 30th June, 1994 and was in position. 5. Respondents have filed reply and have specifically stated that the petitioner had to undergo training of patwari and thereafter he was to be transferred to second grade. Neither he has undergone patwari training nor was he entitled to charge allowance. The officer who has promoted him from the rank of Gang Coolie was not competent to do so and that is why pay was not released to him against the post of Gang Coolie. 6. It is contended that in order to seek promotion against the post of Patwari, a candidate has to undergo the requisite training course which is pre-requisite and petitioner has failed to do. Mere writing a letter by Executive Engineer or any officer cannot be deemed as a promotion and person without qualifying the requisite qualification test cannot claim the relief sought. 7. Mere writing a letter by Executive Engineer or any officer cannot be deemed as a promotion and person without qualifying the requisite qualification test cannot claim the relief sought. 7. Admittedly petitioner has failed to place on record any material on the basis of which it can be said that he has undergone patwari training and was promoted against the post of Gang Coolie by the competent authority as per the Rules applicable. It is the domain of the competent authority to examine the case of the employees for making their promotion to the next higher grade and not of the courts. It is also for the department concerned to see to which grade an employee is entitled to. Otherwise also petitioner has not placed on record anything which can lead one to the conclusion that petitioner has been deprived of his right to next higher grade. 8. However, it appears that petitioner has approached this court after lapse of 13 years. The order under challenge has been issued in the year 1994. The petitioner, having slept over the matter for 13 long years, has approached this court for the reliefs supra without explaining such late approach. Unexplained delay defeats equity, thus writ petition is not maintainable only on this count. My view is fortified by the Apex Court judgments delivered in case titled Printers (Mysore) Ltd. v. M. A. Rasheed and others reported as 2004 (4) SCC, 460; Hindustan Zinc Ltd. v. Bhagwan Singh Bhati and others reported as 2008 (3) SCC 462 ; 2008 (14) SCC 295 and of the Division Bench judgment of this court titled State v. Ghulam Nabi Bhat, LPA Nos. 218/2005,219/2005 & 109/2006. 9. Keeping in view the above narration and the fact that petitioner has failed to explain the delay, the writ petition is held to be without any merit, therefore, dismissed.