AMRIT LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard the learned counsel at some length and find that the prayer of the petitioner with regard to reconsideration of seniority list by placing the petitioner above respondent No. 3 - Budh Ram Verma is highly belated as Budh Ram Verma (who is claimed to be junior to the petitioner) was promoted as Assistant on September 15, 1987. It is appropriate to mention that the petitioner and respondent No. 3 were finally given date of their appointment as Clerk as March 22, 1978 and June 26, 1972 respectively vide order dated July 14, 1988. There was no challenge to that order in any judicial proceedings which has attained finality and constitutes the basis for fixing seniority. Similarly, his further prayer to consider the petitioner for promotion w.e.f. April 24, 1989, the date Major Singh-respondent No. 4, has been considered for promotion on the post of assistant is also highly belated as the cause of action had arisen in the year 1989. When the petitioner approached this Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 17455 of 2004, this Court vide order dated November 8' 2004 had directed the decision on the objection raised by the petitioner to the seniority list may be considered and final decision be taken in the matter. Accordingly, the respondents have passed the impugned order dated June 15, 2005 (annexure P-13). With regard to the petitioner, it has been observed as follows :

(2.) Accordingly, the seniority number of the petitioner has been fixed at. Serial No. 29 on the basis of his date of promotion on September 15, 1987, on the post of Transport Sub Inspector (which is incorrectly typed as Assistant in the impugned order annexure P-13). The aforementioned date has been admittedly reflected even in the earlier seniority lists and constitute the basis for fixation of his seniority, which cannot now be reopened, as has been correctly opined by the respondents. The claim made by the petitioner is highly belated. Even a suit would not be competent against the aforementioned action of the respondents. It is well settled that the limitation period for filing a writ petition cannot be more than the period prescribed for filing a suit as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in the State of M.P. v. Bhai Lal Bhai, 1964 AIR(SC) 1006 therefore, we uphold the order annexure P-13 qua the petitioner and dismiss the prayer made in that regard.

(3.) Another prayer made by the petitioner in the instant petition is that he is entitled to be given the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000/- as against the pay scale of Rs. 5000-7850/- granted to him. However, we do not find any whisper or grievance made before the respondent authority for the aforementioned claim made in the petition. Therefore, we do not wish to adjudicate on the prayer made by the petitioner leaving it open to the petitioner to make an appropriate representation before the departmental authorities in that regard.