MAHARAJ SINGH Vs. DIRECTOR OF AIIMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant herein had filed W.P.(C) No.17200/2004 claiming that he was entitled to seniority in the cadre of Lower Divisional Clerk (LDC) from the date of his initial appointment in 1989 and consequently he was entitled to promotion at least from the year 1994 when he became eligible for consideration to be promoted as UDC. This relief was claimed on the premise that when he was initially appointed as LDC vide appointment order dated 07.8.1989, the said memorandum clearly stated that it was an appointment to the temporary post of Clerk - cum -Record Keeper, albeit, in Dr. Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (hereinafter referred to as ,,AIIMS). The terms and conditions stipulated in this memorandum mentions that the said temporary post was likely to continue and in the event of its becoming permanent, claim for permanent absorption of the appellant would be considered. It also states that other conditions of service such as benefits of pension, GPF and leave, etc. would be the same as provided for in the regulation in AIIMS. It was also contended that the appellant was appointed through Employment Exchange. Therefore, he was to be considered as a regular appointee with effect from initial date of appointment, i.e., 07.8.1989. The appellant had also alleged discrimination on the ground that when other similarly situated persons had been regularized and given the benefit of seniority from the initial date of appointment, it could not have been denied to the appellant.

(2.) AS per this, the claim of the appellant was refuted by the AIIMS on the ground that the appellant was initially appointed on project; his appointment was not on regular basis; he was subsequently absorbed in the Institute in the year 2001 and on this basis, he was promoted as Upper Divisional Clerk (UDC) in the year 2002. The respondent had also taken the plea that the writ petition filed by the appellant suffered from laches and delay as he could not come forward for ten years and claimed retrospective seniority and antedated promotion.

(3.) THE learned Single Judge after hearing the parties dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 26.10.2005 primarily on the ground that the appellant had approached the Court belatedly and that too only he was given promotion in the year 2002. In the opinion of the learned Single Judge, the appellant should have claimed the relief immediately after 1994, but he waited for 11 years before coming to the Court. Even on merits, learned Single Judge took the view that the appellant could not show any rule or regulation as to how he had right to be promoted form retrospective date. Insofar as the case of Shri S.K. Sharma cited by the appellant to allege discrimination is concerned, the learned Single Judge observed the Shri Sharma was not granted promotion, but upgraded under Assured Career Progression after fulfilling the requisite qualification of 12 years service. Resultantly, the writ petition was dismissed.