- (1.) The Court : Six writ petitioners by this writ petition filed in the year 1991 challenged supersession by junior cadre being the respondent No. 6 firstly in the year 1965, secondly in the year 1982 and thirdly in 1987. As there is no service condition and/or Rules framed by the Company the Central Government Rules pertaining to the Government Employees have been made applicable in the case of the employees working under the respondent's Corporation. From the affidavit-in-opposition it appears that the said Corporation gave promotion to the respondent No. 6 in supersession of the petitioners on the basis of "merit-cum-qualification" as explained in paragraph 5(a) of the said affidavit. Mr. Bose appearing for the writ petitioners has submitted that there has been representation made by the writ petitioners from time to time coupled with assurance given by the Corporation that their case would be considered in due time and as such the writ petitioners did not approach this Court earlier. According to Mr. Bose the delay in coming to Court has been explained sufficiently in paragraphs 26 and 27 of the writ petition which are set out hereunder: "26. Against the aforesaid arbitrary and illegal supersession of the petitioners by the respondent No. 6 the petitioner times without number made representations to the respondents authorities both verbally as well as by writing. Copies of three such representations in writing dated 10.3.1987, 8.6.1990 and 13.5.1991 are annexed hereto and collectively marked with the letter "H". "27. Although the respondent authorities gave assurance to the petitioners that their aforesaid legitimate grievance would be sympathetically considered and taken care of in due time up till now no positive steps have been taken by the respondent authorities in this regard."
(2.) Mr. Bose has further contended that there has been similar injustice done to other set of employees of the said Corporation. However, their cases were considered subsequently and refixation has been done by the Corporation as would appear from the several orders appearing at pages 42, 43, 44 and 45 of the writ petition. Mr. Bose in support of his contention has cited the following decisions: 1) (1998) 8 Supreme Court Cases 685; 2) (1999) 4 Supreme Court Cases 450; 3) (1999) 7 Supreme Court Cases 54; and 4) (1998) 8 Supreme Court Cases 652.
(3.) The first two decisions cited by Mr. Bose relate to the delay in approaching to this Court. Paragraph 2 of the first decision [(1998) 8 SCC 685 (supra)] is relevant herein and is quoted below: "2. In our opinion the approach of the High Court is not justified. There is no time-limit for filing the writ petition. All that the Court has to see is whether the laches on the part of the petitioner are such as to disentitle him to the relief claimed by him. But the High Court appears to have examined the matter as if it was a case under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Apart from the above, we do not think that the proceedings should be prolonged any further. Even if the Tribunal is right in its opinion, the only result would be that the disciplinary authority would be now required to pass final order in the disciplinary proceedings. Having regard to the nature of the charge and having regard to the fact that the respondent was only a temporary employee, we think that the following order would be an appropriate one in the circumstances of this case. Instead of reinstatement, pursuant to the order of the Tribunal, the respondent shall be entitled to a consolidated sum of Rs. 30,000/-. The respondent shall not be entitled to any other claim. The said amount shall be paid by way of Government cheque to the respondent within three months from today.";