PRASAN RAJ Vs. THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties. All the three writ petitions have been heard together because they involve identical questions of facts and law, and are being disposed of by a common order. In all the three writ petitions except Jeth Mal are working as Bench Readers. They initially entered into service as LDCs' and were subsequently promoted as UDCs and eventually as Stamp Reporters on passing the appropriate test and were posted as Bench Readers. Respondents Nos. 3 to 5 in all the three Writ Petitions are likewise Bench Readers. They also entered into service as LDCs and were promoted as UDCs' and were further promoted as Stamp Reporters on passing the necessary test and were eventually posted as Bench Readers. Out of the three respondents No. 5 Mulidhar Soni has already retired.

(2.) The only grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents No. 1 and 2 have fixed the initial seniority of the petitioners as LDCs on the basis of the dates of their confirmation as LDCs, while the seniority should have been fixed on the basis of dates of respective appointments. It is submitted that the petitioners are entitled to be promoted nationally in the cadre of UDCs' with effect from the dates, their juniers were promoted. Likewise, petitioners should have been promoted as Stamp Reporters and posted as Bench Readers, keeping in view, their seniority in the cadre of LDCs and UDCs on the basis of their dates of appointment/promotions.

(3.) Respondents No. 1 & 2 have opposed the writ petitions and submitted that the writ petitions suffer from good deal of delay and laches and would upset the equities which have arisen in favour of the other respondents and petitioners should not be permitted to upset these equities by way of obtaining orders in these three writ petitions.