S SOMACHARI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions have been filed against the common order of dismissal dated 19.2.1999, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in the Original Applications and to direct the Union of India to continue the petitioners as Pharmacists in charge of Stores (Store-keeper).

(2.) THE facts giving rise to these writ petitions are as follows:- 2.1 THE petitioners were appointed as Store-keepers under the Union of India in connection with Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS). At that time, the post of Store-Keeper formed a separate cadre and the post of Pharmacist formed a different cadre. THE qualification for the post of Store-keeper is as follows:-

(3.) FIRSTLY, as apparent, the seniority list had been prepared as way back in May, 1989. Law is well settled that in the matters relating to seniority, an aggrieved party is expected to come to the Court as expeditiously as possible without avoidable delay and the matters which are remained settled for a long period should not be allowed to unsettle after a long lapse of time. 5.1 In the present case, the petitioners approached the Tribunal for the first time by filing Original Applications in 1996 or 1997, after about 7 to 8 years. Learned counsels for the petitioners submitted that representations have been made and they have been waiting for the reply from the Government. In such matters, merely by making a representation, an aggrieved employee cannot wait quietly for a long period. If no reply was received within a reasonable period, say six months or one year, obviously the person has to approach the Court to ventilate his grievance. 5.2. The Supreme Court, further, in the judgment relating to the State of Tamil Nadu v. Seschalam (2007 AIR SCW 7750) held that law leans in favour of those who are alert and vigilant. Speaking for the Bench, S.B. Sinha, J. in paragraph 11 had observed as follows:-