RAMESH CHANDRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The preliminary ground on which the writ petition is opposed and which we have to consider at the threshold (on the facts and Law to be stated below) is whether the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground of the laches and delay on the part of the petitioners in filing it.

(2.) On 1st November 1961 the Indian Economic Service Rules were promulgated by the President of India under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. The Service has 4 Grades. According to Rule 8(a)(ii). 25 per cent of the vacancies in Grade IV were to be filled by selection from among officcrs serving in offices under the Government in Economic posts recognised for this purpose by the Controlling Authority who was to prepare a list of such posts in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission. The selection was to be made from amongst those who had completed at least 4 years of service in these posts on the basis of merit with due regard to seniority. The petitioners have been regularly appointed to Economic posts in Class If under the Government of India, in the Planning Commission, Ministry of Finance etc. Respondents 9 to 114 were Junior Field Officers and Investigators (Small Scale Industries Organisation). These posts were initially Class III. Therefore, the Junior Field Officers and Investigators (Small Scale Industries Organisation) Recruitment Rules 1962 showed these posts as Class III. This was, however, contrary to the notificalion No. GSR 220 of 1958 which had been issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs under sub-rule ( 1) of Rule 8 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. 1957. according to which Central Civil posts carrying a pay or a scale of pay with a maximum of not less than Rs. 500 but less than Rs. 850 were to be classified as Class II posts. The respondents 9 to 114 and their colleagucs who held Economic posts in this scale of pay, therefore, represented to the Government that the posts held by them should be classified as Class II. The Government agreed with their contention and proposed to the Union Public Service Commission that these posts should be upgraded to Class II-

(3.) On 26th November 1966 as per Ex. P2 the Union Public Service Commission agreed to the upgradation of the posts held by respondents 9 to 114 from Class III to Class II. On 7th September 1968 the Junior Field Officers and Investigators (Small Scale Industries Organisation) Recruitment Rules 1962 were amended and the posts held by respondents 9 to 114 were upgraded from Class III to Class II retrospectively with effect from 18th September 1962 as per Ex. P3. Respondents 9 to 114 were thereupon appointed to these upgraded Class II posts with effect from the 18th of September 1962 in substanlive capacity. The respondents 9 to 114 however, contended that they were already occupying these posts in substantive capacity from before 18th September 1962. According to them. the effect of 1968 amendment of the 1962 rules was to declare that respondents 9 to 114 had been functioning in these posts substantively from the dates of their original appointments as holding Class II posts retrospectively. In Civil Writ No. 216 of 1970 filed by them, this contention was accepted by Vyas Dev Misra. J. of this Court by judgment delivered on March 29, 1972. Effect was given to this judgment by the Government of India by letter dated 23rd November 1973 as per Ex. PI. The petitioners intend that the consent by the Union Public Service Commission to the upgradation of the posts of respondents 9 to 114 as per Ex. P2 dated 26th November 1966, 1968's amendment of the 1962 Rules on 7th September 1968 as per Ex- P3 and the letter of 23rd November 1973 implementing the judgment of this Court were illegal and wrong and pray that all the three of them be quashed. The respondents 9 to 114 have pertinently pointed out that the cause of action, if any, accrued to the petitioners on 7th September 1968 when the Rules of 1962 were amended and the amendment was notified in the official gazette. The writ petition filed on 18th February 1974 was, therefore, highly delayed. In the writ petition the petitioners did not say a word of explanation as to why the filing of the writ petition was delayed and why the delay should be condoned. Even in the rejoinder filed by the petitioners after the ground of delay was raised by respondents 9 to 114 all that was stated was that the cause of action for writ petition arose on 23rd November 1973 and that "the 1968 notification, even if deemed to be valid does not spell out that it is intended to take advantage of the formation of the IES/ISS feeder".