- (1.) B. S. Chauhan, J. The petitioner was appointed by the Food Cor poration of India on the post of AG. III (D) vide order- dated 211 30-6-1970, Annexure 1 to the writ petition. The petitioner changed her cadre from AG. Ill (D) to AG. III (M) on 1-1-73 and con tinued as such. The petitioner filed the representation that she should be treated in her original cadre and her seniority should be restored in the same. The said representation was made after expiry of 20 years from the date of change of cadre. As no action was taken on her representation, the petitioner filed the writ petition No. 20341 of 1993 before this Court and the same was disposed of on 15-7-93 with a direction to the respondents that her rep resentation be disposed of within a period of six weeks from the said date by a speak ing order. It appears that the order of this Court was not complied with and petitioner preferred the contempt peti tion and on receiving the contempt notice, the representation of the petitioner was decided by the respondent vide order dated 20-10-93 wherein her repre sentation was rejected mainly on the ground that the claim was made after a lapse of 20 years and thus the seniority cannot be restored in her original cadre.
(2.) BEING aggrieved, the petitioner preferred writ petition before the Delhi High Court which was dismissed as withdrawn on 21st August, 1995 with a liberty to file a fresh petition before this Court. Hence this writ petition. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer that this Court may quash the order dated 20-10-93 and restore her seniority and pay scale in her original cadre with effect from 1-1-73 with all con sequential benefits. The instant petition raises the fol lowing three main questions, (1) whether a seniority list in existence for more than 20 years can be disturbed; (2) whether making of repeated representations can give rise to fresh cause of action; (3) whether the petition is maintainable as the petitioner had not impleaded any person their appointments within the period prescribed for a suit, they could look forward for further promotion and higher terminal benefits on retirement. " belonging to her original cadre whose seniority etc. , may be affected if any relief is granted to the petitioner.
(3.) SO far as first issue is concerned, in the case of R. S. Deodhar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1974 SC 259, the Con stitution Bench of the Supreme Court ob served as under: "it may also be noted that the principle on which the Courts proceed in refusing relief to the petitioner on grounds of laches or delay is that the rights which have accrued to others by reason of the delay in filing the petition should not be allowed to be disturbed unless there a reasonable explanation for the delay. " Similarly, in K. R. Mudgal v. R. P. Singh, AIR 1986 SCC 2086, the Apex Court followed its earlier judgment in R. S. Maxhi v. I. M. Menan, AIR 1982 SC 101, wherein the Court held that the peti tion should be rejected on preliminary ground of delay and laches, inasmuch as it seeks to disrupt the vested right regarding the seniority, rank and promotion which has accrued to a large number of persons during the intervening period,;