R K CHACHODIYA Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though this batch of writ petitions was listed as a singular batch, in course of hearing it transpired on the basis of the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, namely, Mr. D. K. Dixit and Mr. A. K. Mishra, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State, who has also challenged the order of the Tribunal in those cases where the seniority of certain officers have been affected that there are certain distinctions between the cases and they have to be compartmentalized into three separate compartments for the purpose of clarity and convenience. To elucidate in certain writ petitions challenge is to the order passed by the M. P. Administrative Tribunal Bhopal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') whereby it has dismissed the applications filed by the petitioners on two counts, namely, they cannot claim similar relief which has been granted by the Apex Court in civil Appeal No.3971/94 (S.K. Chopra and others v. State of M. P. and others) disposed of on 5 -12 -1996 and further applications were to be thrown at the threshold being barred by limitation. In other cases where petitions were preferred,the Tribunal expressed the view that incumbents therein were entitled to the relief as per the decision rendered by the Apex court in the case of S. K. Chopra (Supra) and the delay and laches as well as limitation which had been highlighted by way of colossal objection by the beneficiary as well as by the State was to be thrown overboard peremptorily. The second category of order is assailed by the State as well as by the private parties. That is why we have stated in the beginning that the cases fall in to three compartments. For the sake of clarify and convenience, we will refer to the facts of the case In a singular spectrum for the simon pure reason, we are going to deal with the facet of limitation which has been dealt with by the Tribunal in all category of cases in a different manner and Mr. A.K. Mishra,learned Deputy Advocate General for the State has propounded before us that limitation pierces and penetrates into very gravamen of submissions raised by the petitioner who have been unsuccessful before the Tribunal as well as the petitioners who have crossed the bridge and the limitation lancets the 'elan vital ' of their substratum.

(2.) NOW to the factual setting. The petitioners in the cases, which have been dismissed by the Tribunal were appointed as junior Engineers, which was initially in the non -gazetted cadre. If is not disputed at the bar that their appointments had taken effect on various dates in the year 1970 -1971while so functioning they were appointed as Assistant Engineers taking recourse to proviso of Rule 19(1) of the M. P. Irrigation Engineering Service (Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 1969, The said Rule envisages that in absence of select list Junior Engineers can be appointed to the higher post on ad hoc basis for a period of three months. This power has been concerned on the State Government and it is not an absolute one. It stipulates, there must be contingency for exercise of such power. It is the common case of both parties that persons who were allowed to function as Assistant Engineers,were regularised in the year 1972. It is not disputed that gradation list was published indicating the inter se seniority of the parties in the year 1976.

(3.) WE may proceed to state here, the point of delay which was urged before the Apex Court was mentioned to be rejected. Mr. Mishra, learned State Counsel has submitted that the Apex court did not consider the issue of delay, as S. K. Chopra had immediately approached this court when he felt aggrieved because of his change of his seniority -