MORESHWAR ANANDRAO LAKHE Vs. THE DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY, NAGPUR DIVISION, NAGPUR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Stores Clerk in the South-Eastern Railway, Nagpur Division Nagpur by an order dated Aug. 1, 1946. By another order dated March 24, 1952, he was confirmed in that post. Consequent upon passing the suitability test on July 24, 1962, the petitioner was transferred on promotion as a Stores Clerk as in the grade of Rs. 130-300 to fill in the vacancy in the office of the Divisional Commercial Superintendent, Kharagpur Division, Kharagpur. The Divisional Commercial Superintendent, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, had issued an order of transfer on promotion in respect of the petitioner on Jan. 3, 1962. It is the case of the petitioner that the Divisional Personnel Officer, Nagpur Division. Nagpur, by an order dated Aug. 27, 1962, intimated the petitioner that on account of availability of the additional upgraded posts in the scale of Rs. 130-300 in the office of the Nagpur Division, the petitioner was absorbed as a Senior Dealer in the scale of Rs, 130-300 in the existing vacancy in the Stores Sec. of the Divisional Commercial Superintendent, Nagpur. Some time in 1963, new railway divisions were created and there was some redistribution of posts. On Jan. 4, 1965 the petitioner was reverted to his former post in the scale of Rs. 110-180 as an Assistant Stores Clerk and he was retained in the Divisional Commercial Superintendent's office at Nagpur. On Aug. 16, 1965, the petitioner made a representation against this order of reversion. On Feb. 19, 1966, the petitioner sent another representation by way of an appeal to the Divisional Superintendent, South-Eastern Railway, Nagpur. By an order dated April 4, 1966, the petitioner was temporarily promoted to officiate as a Senior Clerk in the grade of Rs. 130-300. That was a stop-gap arrangement on a purely temporary basis. By an office order dated April 15, 1966, there was a revision of the clerical cadre under the Divisional Commercial Superintendent, Nagpur and on account of the revision the petitioner was again reverted. On May 11, 1966, the petitioner was again promoted to officiate in the scale of Rs. 130-300. This again was a purely stop-gap arrangement on a temporary basis. On Feb. 10, 1967, the petitioner sent an appeal to respondent No. 2 whereby he made a claim for the protection of his pay and seniority. On May 24, 1967, the petitioner was confirmed in the scale of Rs. 130-300, as a Senior Clerk with effect from Jan. 1, 1967. The representation made by the petitioner did not succeed and on Dec. 27, 1967, vide Annexure-XIX, he was informed that his request for protection of pay and seniority could not be granted. The petitioner made further representations by way of appeal and on June 13, 1969, the Divisional Personnel Officer, Nagpur, informed the petitioner that his representation could not be accepted. On Dec. 20, 1969, the petitioner filed the present petition claiming a writ for quashing the two letters dated Dec. 27, 1967 and June 13, 1969. The substantial relief which the petitioner claims in this petition is that the respondents be directed to fix his pay and seniority on the basis of the transfer order of the petitioner to Kharagpur on Jan. 3, 1962.

(2.) A return has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1. A point has been taken that the petition is filed at a very late stage. It is contended on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner cannot ask the Court to give a relief on the basis of the order dated Jan. 3, 1962 in a petition which is filed on Dec. 20, 1969. It is also submitted that after Jan. 3, 1962, new Divisions have been created in the South-Eastern Railway and these new divisions are having their separate seniority lists. The petitioner now wants his seniority to be fixed and that relief cannot be granted to the petitioner as it is likely to affect the seniority of different persons in the new divisions. It is also suggested that the relief for fixation of his seniority is likely to affect a number of other persons who are not parties to this petition before this Court and the petition cannot, therefore, be entertained. These are the three contentions which have been raised, apart from the contentions on the merits of this case.

(3.) We feel that in the circumstances of the present case, it is not possible for us to entertain this petition. The relief which the petitioner has claimed in para (ii) of the prayer clause is for the fixation of his pay and seniority on the basis of the transfer order dated Jan. 3, 1962, The petitioner in this petition wants the relief with reference to the situation prevalent on Jan. 3, 1962. From that point of view, the petition filed on Dec. 20, 1969 seems to be filed after inordinate delay. Mr. Kamlakar, the learned advocate for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was making representations from 1965 and the representation ultimately came to be turned down on June 13, 1969. According to Mr. Kamlakar, it is this letter dated June 13, 1969 which has given a cause of action to the petitioner to file this petition. It is not possible for us to accept this contention of Mr. Kamlakar. It is clear on the documents filed in the present case that the petitioner was absorbed in the promoted post and it was only on account of his reversion under the order dated Jan. 4, 1965 that the petitioner started making a grievance. If the petitioner wants his reliefs with reference to the transfer order dated Jan. 3, 1962, it is clear that till 1962 (sic), he had made no grievance in that behalf. It is clear that the petitioner slept over the situation till 1965. But for his reversion in 1965, the petitioner would not have made any grievance on the basis of the transfer order dated Jan. 3, 1962. We, therefore, feel that in the present case the petition suffers from delay and, as such, we cannot entertain this petition. The claim involved in this petition is with regard to the fixation of seniority and pay of the petitioner. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have laid down in a decision in P. S. Sadasivaswamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 2271 : (1974 Lab IC 1431) as follows :