SAJJAN SINGH KAURAV Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following relief(s):-

(2.) The facts which are necessary for the disposal of the present petition in short are that in the year 1971, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Computer (Statistics) and was promoted from time to time and at the relevant time, he was working on the post of Deputy Commissioner (Statistics) Land Records. It is the claim of the petitioner that he was eligible for further promotion to the post of Joint Director (Statistics) and the post had also fallen vacant in the year 2009, but the DPC was not convened. As a result of which the petitioner's claim for his promotion could not be considered and ultimately he stood retired from the service on 31-1- 2013. It is submitted that the petitioner had made several representations for convening the DPC and for granting him promotion, but that was not done. It is further submitted that the petitioner had made a complaint on CM helpline as well as to Jan Shikayat Nivaran Vibhag, and by order dated 5-4-2018 (At page 90) his claim was rejected on the ground that the petitioner had not acquired minimum qualification of 5 years of service on the post of Dy. Commissioner (Statistics). It is further submitted that this order was incorrect because the eligibility of the petitioner was calculated on the basis of his length of service in the year 2007, but the post of Joint Commissioner (Statistics) had fallen vacant in the year 2009, and by that time he had acquired minimum qualification. It is further submitted that since, the petitioner had made successive representations, which were being entertained by the respondents, therefore, every successive representation and every decision on his representation would give a fresh cause of action. It is further submitted that since, the promotion of the petitioner would effect his pension, therefore, the petitioner has a recurring cause of action.

(3.) Per contra, the Counsel for the State submitted that this petition suffers from delay and laches and relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Balram Prasad Shukla Vs. State of M.P. and others reported in 2006(1) MPLJ 278. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.