JITENDRA NARAYAN PANDEY Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pleadings are complete. The counsel for the parties agreed to argue the matter finally, accordingly, it is finally heard.

(2.) By the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has claimed that his superannuation vide order dtd. 16/10/2014 and the order dtd. 6/6/2015 be declared bad in law and promotion granted to respondent Nos.4 and 5 be set aside. It has also been claimed that the order rejecting the representation of the petitioner vide order dtd. 28/1/2021 be also set aside and it be directed that the case of the petitioner be considered for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer without considering the adverse ACRs for the years 2011 to 2013 and as such, he be promoted w.e.f. 16/10/2024, the date when respondent No.4 was promoted superseding the petitioner or he be granted promotion w.e.f. 6/6/2015 when respondent No.5, who was junior to him, was promoted after superseding the petitioner and the petitioner be granted all consequential benefits. Although, this fact has been denied by the respondents and they have contended that the petition suffers from delay and laches and as such, petition can be dismissed because in a matter of promotion, delay plays an important role as in number of cases, the Supreme Court is continuously holding that in a case of promotion claimed belatedly, the High Court should not entertain the petition if there is no sufficient explanation given for challenging the same belatedly and according to the respondents, the petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

(3.) However, considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, the core question emerges for adjudication is "whether the petition suffers from delay and laches and if not, then the petitioner's claim for granting him promotion with retrospective date when respondent Nos.4 and 5 were promoted, can be considered or not?"