Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner at length. The petitioner has sought the following reliefs : (a)to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to give First Personnel Promotion from 13.2.2003 and second First Personnel Promotion from 13.2.2008 as the petitioner has completed 19 and 24 years of minimum service. (b)to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to give arrears of Super Selection Grade from the period 19.8.1999 to 19.8.2001, henceforth and further correct salary structure for future period also as per Government Order dated 2.12.2000. (c)to issue such other and further appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. (d)to award the cost of petition to the petitioner.
(2.) SO far as the relief no. 2 is concerned, from a bare perusal of the record, it appears that the same fell due on 9.8.1999 and in any case, after the Government Order dated 2.12.2000, the petitioner ought to have approached the appropriate Forum seeking the aforesaid relief, if any, but there is nothing on record as to what the petitioner has been doing for the last 9 years and why he has approached this Court at such a belated stage. There is not even a single whisper to explain the aforesaid laches and, therefore, the relief no. 2 cannot be granted to the petitioner after such a long unexplained delay and laches. So far as the relief no. 1 is concerned, the first time bound promotion, which the petitioner claims, also according to him fell due on 13.2.2003, but in the last 6 years why the petitioner did not take appropriate step before the appropriate Forum for claiming the above relief has also not been said and the petitioner to this extent also, is guilty of undue delay and laches. Hence, no relief can be granted to him with respect to this part also. With respect to the second time bound promotion, which, as he alleged, fell due after rendering 24 years of service, i.e. from 13.2.2008, the record nowhere shows that the petitioner raised any grievance before the authorities concerned for considering his case for grant of second time bound promotion after completion of 24 years of service. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed before this Court a letter dated 2.12.2008 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) sent by the Asst. Commandant, 42nd Battalion, requesting the Finance Controller, U.P. Police Head Quarters to examine the ACR and pay fixation of the petitioner as to whether the same is correct or not, which has been certified by the Auditor, Police Head Quarters by its endorsement dated 21.12.2008 that the pay fixation, as per the service record is correct. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this amount to denial on the part of the respondents in granting second time bound promotion to the petitioner.
(3.) IN my view, the submission is thoroughly misconceived inasmuch it only examines at present time whether the pay fixation of the petitioner as per service record was correct or not but there is no scrutiny by the authorities concerned with respect to his claim for time bound promotion after rendering 24 years of service, which, according to him, fell due in February' 2008. Therefore, in my view, the petitioner must, at the first instance, approach the appropriate authority by making a suitable representation claiming the aforesaid time bound pay scale and, in case, any such representation is made by the petitioner within four weeks from today, the competent authority shall consider the same and pass an appropriate reasoned order in accordance with law disposing of the above representation, if made, within two months thereafter. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.;