UNIVERSITY OF DELHI Vs. OM PRAKASH & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the present petition the Petitioner assails the impugned award dated 9th May, 2001 whereby the Promotion Committee of the Petitioner was directed to consider the case of the workman for his promotion with consequential benefits as Assistant and Senior Assistants from the dates his juniors have been promoted.

(2.) The facts in brief are that Respondent No.1 was appointed as a Library Attendant on 4th October, 1963. He was promoted to the post of Clerk -cum Typist on 17th June, 1966 followed by a promotion to the post of Assistant on 23rd June, 1973, though Respondent No.1 claims to have been promoted as Assistant on 17th January, 1973. In January 1991 Respondent No.1 was promoted as Senior Assistant. During all these years he accepted the promotion without any demure or protest. On 20th November, 1993 a legal notice was sent by Respondent No.1 to the Petitioner claiming that he ought to have been promoted as an Assistant from 1971 instead of 23rd June, 1973 as four other employees appointed in the year 1963 along with him have been promoted as Assistant in 1971. The Petitioner/ management replied that the case of the Respondent No.1 was considered in 1971, however due to an adverse entry for the year 1969 he was not found fit for promotion. Since there were no adverse entries for the year 1970, 1971 & 1972 he was promoted in the year 1973. On a dispute being raised the following terms of reference were sent for adjudication on 14th November, 1995 "whether Shri Om Prakash is entitled to be promoted as Assistant and Senior Assistant from the dates his juniors had been promoted, if so, to what relief, including the consequential benefits is he entitled to and what directions are necessary in this respect -. The following issues were framed by the learned Adjudicator i.e. (i) as per the terms of reference and (ii) whether the claims is not maintainable for the reasons stated in para 1 & 2 of the preliminary objections of the management.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner has raised only one objection. It is contended that Respondent No.1 was promoted as Assistant in 1973 and he continued therein and also earned further promotions, however he did not agitate his grievance till 20th November, 1993. Thus, in view of the delay of more than 20 years in raising the dispute, the Respondent No.1 could not have raised the dispute as a stale dispute is non -existent divesting the Tribunal of the jurisdiction to entertain the same. Reliance in this regard is placed on The Nedungadi Bank Ltd. Vs. K.P. Madhavankutty and Ors. : AIR 2000 SC 839, and thus the award is liable to be set aside on this short point itself.