SUBHASH CHANDRA Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner/Sh. Subhash Chandra against his employer/respondent no.1/Punjab National Bank seeking various reliefs which are in fact basically for grant of promotion to the petitioner as a Scale IV officer from the present Scale III post to which the petitioner was appointed/promoted w.e.f 15.1.2001. By the writ petition and the reliefs prayed therein, the petitioner firstly seeks quashing of the Order dated 6.1.2012 passed by the respondent no.1/employer/bank rejecting the representation of the petitioner to review the earlier appellate decision dated 16.8.2008 declining the grant of promotion to the petitioner from Scale III to Scale IV. Petitioner also seeks quashing of his Performance Appraisal Report (PAR) for the year 2007-08 as per which the petitioner by reviewing authority was given only 56 marks. Petitioner also seeks direction for the implementation of the memorandum issued by the Government of India for reservation for physically challenged persons and consequently for grant of promotion to the petitioner from Scale III officer to a Scale IV officer. The reliefs prayed for in the writ petition read as under:-

(2.) To consider the first prayer for quashing of the decision dated 6.1.2012, the said decision is reproduced as under:-

(3.) A reading of the writ petition shows that the petitioner for the year 2007-08 was only granted 56 marks by the reviewing authority and which action of the reviewing authority was challenged by the petitioner by filing an Appeal dated 16.8.2008 to the Chairman and Managing Director (CMD) of the respondent no.1/employer/bank. This appeal was dismissed by the CMD on 6.11.2008. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no.1/employer/bank, it is pleaded that the decision challenged by the petitioner dated 6.1.2012 is effectively and really a challenge to the first decision of the CMD dated 6.11.2008, and the challenge to the first decision in the appeal dated 6.11.2008 cannot be done four years later in the year 2012 when the writ petition was filed, and thus the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.