K S DIYOL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prayed for issuing writ of mandamus directing the respondents to fix the deemed date of promotion of his promotion with effect from 6.10.1974 and to give all other benefit of service by placing him at Sr.No.180-A in the seniority list of Unarmed Police Inspector.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner, in this petition, is that on 6.10.1974 his Juniors were promoted to the higher post of Police Inspector from the post of P.S.I., but he was not promoted. He was promoted later on i.e. on 1.4.1980 with retrospective effect from 1.1.1978, instead of 6.10.1974. When he was not promoted in 1974, he had earlier made representation on 29.4.1978. Thereafter, he had made another representation dated 17.3.1982 which was rejected by the State Government on 21.6.1984 (Annexure : I). Thereafter, after a period of almost 3 years i.e. on 28.4.1987 the petitioner has filed this petition before this Court. It appears from the order sheet of this case that this petition was initially placed before the learned Single Judge of this Court on 24.9.1987 and straightway, without issuing Notice to the otherside, the petition was admitted by issuing "Rule" and it was fixed for hearing in the month of February, 1988. However, due to some or the other reasons the matter could not be heard and finally disposed of till today. During the pendency of this petition, the petitioner reached the age of superannuation and retired from service on 31.7.1997, as stated at the Bar by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) From the above, it is clear that the Juniors of the petitioner were promoted but he was not promoted on 6.10.1974, but except making representation, that too, after a period of almost 4 years in 1978, he had done nothing. Even after he was promoted later on by an order dated 1.4.1980 with retrospective effect from 1.1.1978 he did not do anything for a period of almost 2 years and for the first time he made another representation dated 17.3.1982 to the State Government which was rejected on 21.6.1984 (Annexure : I), thereafter, he slept over the matter for a period of nearly about 3 years and only on 28.4.1987 he approached this Court by way of this petition. Thus, the petition suffers from the vice of gross delay and latches which has remained unexplained. In view of this learned A.G.P. Shri Pancholi, appearing for the respondent, has rightly submitted that without going into the legality and validity of the order this petition should be dismissed on the ground of gross delay and latches for years together.