R H VASWANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 07.01.1985 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the appellant herein inter alia claiming the following reliefs :-

(2.) This appeal raises a short question as to whether the learned Single Judge having regard to several judgments of this Court on similar issues could dismiss the said writ petition only on the ground of delay and/or alleged conduct on the part of the petitioner.

(3.) In view of the question involved in this appeal, the factual matrix of the matter need not be noticed in great details. Suffice it to state, that the appellant herein was appointed as Lower Division Clerk ( in short, 'LDC' ) in the Central Government Department at Karachi (Sind) w.e.f. 28.01.1947. In August, 1947, after partition of the country, he was transferred to Ranchi. In the year 1948, he joined the Department of Accountant General, Central Revenue at Delhi on transfer from Ranchi. On 09.04.1954, he was selected as Upper Division Clerk ( in short, 'UDC' ) in the Department of Rehabilitation. In the years 1955 and 1958, he was promoted as Junior Accountant and Senior Accountant respectively. On or about 30.05.1961, he was promoted as Superintendent and by an order dated 31.12.1963 he was further promoted as Managing Officer/Assistant Settlement Officer/Assistant Custodian w.e.f. 01.01.1964. It is not in dispute that he was confirmed as UDC in the Department of Rehabilitation w.e.f. 11.07.1967 and thereafter as Superintendent w.e.f. 01.11.1970. It is also not in dispute that a seniority list was prepared by the respondent vide orders dated 31.07.1971 showing his position much below to those who had been promoted later than him. Aggrieved by the said seniority list, he made representation stating that at least 11 persons were wrongly shown above him. Considering certain changes suggested by the Department of Administrative Reforms, Ministry of Finance, some posts in the Department of Rehabilitation, Office of Chief Settlement Commissioner were declared surplus and the Ministry of Home Affairs issued an Office Memorandum dated 25.02.1966 pertaining to redeployment of the surplus staff. The appellant was also declared surplus. The Government vide another Office Memorandum dated 25.03.1968 assumed responsibility for redeployment of surplus staff of other groups including Class I and Class II officers on the basis of recommendations of the Union Public Service Commissioner (in short, 'UPSC'). Yet another Office Memorandum dated 18.04.1969 was issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs I regarding grant of protection from reversion of officiating officers so rendered surplus. On 21.09.1972, the petitioner was served with a notice of termination of services stating that the said notice would be treated as having been withdrawn in case he joins the post as and when he is intimated and when a vacancy becomes available. By an order dated 25.10.1972, he was called upon to join as Inspector of Central Excise in the Office of Collector of Central Excise and Land Custom on 01.11.1972, but allegedly he was not allowed to work on the ground that unless and until he undergoes medical fitness and other tests, he could not be allowed to work. By a memorandum dated 29.11,1972 again, the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Cabinet Secretariat, Department of Personnel directed and advised the appellant to report for duty to Collectorate of Central Excise immediately but latest by 30.11.1972. Yet again by another memorandum dated 30.11.1972, he along with two other persons were being offered temporary post of Inspector, Central Excise subject to the conditions mentioned therein. In the aforementioned situation, he allegedly under protest joined the post of Inspector, Central Excise.