Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 53 (ALL)

Babu Ram v. State of U. P.

2023-01-05

MANISH KUMAR, RAMESH SINHA

body2023
JUDGMENT Ramesh Sinha, J. (Oral) The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners, Babu Ram, Atar Singh, Juglal, Sadhu Ram, Ram Singh, Ravidutt and Phool Singh, challenging the judgment and order dated 25.01.2021 passed by the State Public Services Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 24 of 2019 : Babu Ram and 13 others v. State of U.P. and others as well as judgment and order dated 28.09.2022 passed in Review Petition No. 15 of 2021 by the State Public Services Tribunal, whereby the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition as well as review petition. 2. Shri Shiv Nath Goswami, learned Counsel for the petitioner has sent an illness slip. It appears that along with Shri Shiv Nath Goswami, Advocate, the name of Shri Santosh Kumar and Ramakant Upadhyay has also been shown in the cause list as Counsel for the petitioner Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:1530-DB but neither they are present nor there is any request to pass over or adjournment of the case. In these backdrops, we proceeds to hear the matter with the assistance of learned Standing Counsel. 3. Heard Shri Anil Kumar Singh Bisen, learned Standing Counsel for the State/respondents no. 1 to 4 and perused the impugned judgments as well as material brought on record. 4. Brief facts of the case are that petitioners were appointed on the post of Vaccinator in the Health Department on 18.09.2067, 09.06.1973, 25.07.1962, 28.09.1971, 22.09.1978, 29.03.1971, 18.06.1971, respectively. Petitioners no. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 were retired from the post of Health Inspector on 30.09.2004, 31.07.2010, 31.01.1996, 30.09.2011 and 31.07.2012, respectively, whereas petitioner no.5-Ram Singh appears to be still in service. 5. According to the petitioners, the Government of U.P. had issued a Government Order dated 04.02.1983 in regard to granting the selection grade to those employees who have completed his 10 years satisfactory services but the petitioners, even after completion of 10 years satisfactory services, were not granted the selection grade because they were already drawn higher pay scale. Subsequently, Government of U.P. had issued another Government Order dated 17.10.1985, by which the benefit of selection grade has been granted to those employees, who have been given the higher pay-scale before 01.07.1982 but the petitioners were not given the benefit of the aforesaid Government Order dated 17.10.1985 also. 6. Subsequently, Government of U.P. had issued another Government Order dated 17.10.1985, by which the benefit of selection grade has been granted to those employees, who have been given the higher pay-scale before 01.07.1982 but the petitioners were not given the benefit of the aforesaid Government Order dated 17.10.1985 also. 6. It has been stated in the writ petition that several similarly situated persons have filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, claiming selection grade w.e.f. 01.07.1982, which was allowed and they have been granted selection grade w.e.f. 01.07.1982 in compliance of the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal, but the petitioners were not granted the selection grade w.e.f. 01.07.1982 and as such, they preferred a joint representations dated 03.04.2017 to the authority concerned but as no heed was paid, the petitioners had preferred claim petition, bearing No. 1613 of 2018, before the Tribunal, which was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 11.09.2018, directing to decide the petitioners' representation dated 03.04.2017 within three months. 7. In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 11.09.2018, the petitioners' representation dated 03.04.2017 was considered by the authority concerned and the same was rejected vide order dated 18.12.2018, which was challenged by the petitioners before the Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 24 of 2019. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties and going through the record, opined that the petitioners have filed the representation claiming selection grade after 32 years and further claim petition raising the issue of grant of selection grade w.e.f. 01.07.1982 is also barred by limitation and the same is not maintainable, dismissed the claim petition vide judgment and order dated 25.01.2021. Not satisfied with the judgment and order dated 25.01.2021, the petitioners have preferred Review Petition No. 15 of 2021 before the Tribunal, which was also dismissed by the Tribunal vide judgment and order dated 28.09.2022. 8. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid orders dated 25.01.2021 and 28.09.2022 passed by the Tribunal, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners. 9. Learned Standing Counsel, on placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining and Anr. 8. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid orders dated 25.01.2021 and 28.09.2022 passed by the Tribunal, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners. 9. Learned Standing Counsel, on placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining and Anr. : (2008) 10 SCC 115 , contended that the repeated approach by the petitioners to the respondents for the redressal of their grievances cannot explain the laches inasmuch as any such order which was sought to be challenged by the petitioners should have been challenged within a reasonable time. He also contended that in C. Jacob (supra), the Apex Court, after considering the modus of representation as submitted by the employees, has held that repeated representations would not revive a stale claim. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition as well as review petition preferred by the petitioners by means of the impugned orders. 10. We have examined the submission advanced by the learned Standing Counsel and perused the impugned judgments as well as the material brought on record. 11. The ground in the petition is that similarly situated persons were granted the selection grade in compliance of the order of the Tribunal passed in a claim petition but the petitioners' claim was rejected by the authority concerned vide order dated 18.12.2018, which was challenged before the Tribunal by filing claim petition No. 24 of 2019 but the Tribunal, without going into the merits of the case, has erred in rejecting the claim of the petitioners by means of the impugned orders on the grounds that the petitioners have moved the representation for grant to selection grade after 32 years. 12. It transpires from the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal that the Tribunal, after hearing the parties and going through the record, has recorded specific finding of facts that when the Government Order dated 17.10.1985 was issued by the State Government, granting selection grade to those employees who have drawn higher pay scale, the petitioners did not submit any representation for granting the benefit of the aforesaid order dated 17.10.1985 and kept mum. After 32 years, the petitioners woke up in a deep slumber and preferred a representation on 03.04.2017, claiming to grant them selection grade in the light of the Government Order dated 17.10.1985. After 32 years, the petitioners woke up in a deep slumber and preferred a representation on 03.04.2017, claiming to grant them selection grade in the light of the Government Order dated 17.10.1985. The said representation was rejected by the authority concerned on 18.12.2018 by observing that the petitioners are not entitled to get selection grade. Accordingly, the claim petition as well as review petition was dismissed by the Tribunal by means of the impugned orders. 13. On due consideration, we are of the view that in case the respondents did not pay any heed to the claim of the petitioners, then, they should have agitate the issue forthwith by preferring appropriate application/ representation or to approach a Court of law but approaching the authority concerned after a period of almost 32 years seeking selection grade w.e.f. 01.07.1982 to them, cannot stand judicial scrutiny. The Tribunal has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in C. Jacob (supra). For the sake of convenience, the relevant observations of the Apex Court in C. Jacob (supra) are reproduced as under:- "8. Let us take the hypothetical case of an employee who is terminated from service in 1980. He does not challenge the termination. But nearly two decades later, say in the year 2000, he decides to challenge the termination. He is aware that any such challenge would be rejected at the threshold on the ground of delay (if the application is made before Tribunal) or on the ground of delay and laches (if a writ petition is filed before a High Court). Therefore, instead of challenging the termination, he gives a representation requesting that he may be taken back to service. Normally, there will be considerable delay in replying such representations relating to old matters. Taking advantage of this position, the ex-employee files an application/writ petition before the Tribunal/High Court seeking a direction to the employer to consider and dispose of his representation. The Tribunals/High Courts routinely allow or dispose of such applications/petitions (many a time even without notice to the other side), without examining the matter on merits, with a direction to consider and dispose of the representation. 9. The courts/tribunals proceed on the assumption, that every citizen deserves a reply to his representation. Secondly they assume that a mere direction to consider and dispose of the representation does not involve any 'decision' on rights and obligations of parties. 9. The courts/tribunals proceed on the assumption, that every citizen deserves a reply to his representation. Secondly they assume that a mere direction to consider and dispose of the representation does not involve any 'decision' on rights and obligations of parties. Little do they realize the consequences of such a direction to 'consider'. If the representation is considered and accepted, the ex-employee gets a relief, which he would not have got on account of the long delay, all by reason of the direction to 'consider'. If the representation is considered and rejected, the ex-employee files an application/writ petition, not with reference to the original cause of action of 1982, but by treating the rejection of the representation given in 2000, as the cause of action. A prayer is made for quashing the rejection of representation and for grant of the relief claimed in the representation. The Tribunals/High Courts routinely entertain such applications/petitions ignoring the huge delay preceding the representation, and proceed to examine the claim on merits and grant relief. In this manner, the bar of limitation or the laches gets obliterated or ignored. 10. Every representation to the government for relief, may not be replied on merits. Representations relating to matters which have become stale or barred by limitation, can be rejected on that ground alone, without examining the merits of the claim. In regard to representations unrelated to the department, the reply may be only to inform that the matter did not concern the department or to inform the appropriate department. Representations with incomplete particulars may be replied by seeking relevant particulars. The replies to such representations, cannot furnish a fresh cause of action or revive a stale or dead claim." 14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgments passed by the Tribunal. 15. The instant writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.