SHETHNA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner Kudrat Ali and others filed separate writ petitions before this Court against the termination order which came to be allowed by a common judgment and order dated 3. 7. 84 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. Against that judgment, the respondent Municipal Council, Bhilwara filed six separate appeals including D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 286/84 against the present petitioner. THEy were partly allowed by the judgment and order dated 6. 7. 89 delivered in D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 283/84 and allied matters.
(2.) BY way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed that the respondents be directed to assign seniority to the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment i. e. June, 72 instead of date of selection i. e. 31. 1. 77. Reply affidavit is filed to this petition wherein several preliminary objections have been raised. The main objection was that of suppression of material fact and of alternate remedy available to the petitioner before the Labour Court. On merits, it was also objected and relying upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge, it was submitted that the petitioner was not entitled for such relief because in the operative part of the order, the learned Single Judge while allowing his writ petition clearly observed that they may be paid back wages but their appointments will be considered as fresh. I would like to reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment of the learned Single Judge which is as under:- " It was stated before me that petitioners Kudrat Ali Kazi, Rameshwar Lal, Manohar Singh and Shantilal have already been absorbed in the Municipality. These persons will be entitled to the pay and allowances as admissible at the relevant date between the period of termination of their service as if no order was made on March 4, 1976 and they will be entitled to the benefits and allowances between the period when they were relieved of the charges and the fresh appointments were made in their favour. " It may be stated that there is a gross delay of nearly 15 years in filing the writ petition as the seniority list was prepared in 1976. Learned counsel. Mr. Lodha tried to explain the delay by submitting that after he filed his objections regarding his seniority, his services came to be terminated by the respondent Municipality which was challenged by him before this Court by way of writ petition and the same was allowed only in the year 1984, therefore, the petitioner cannot be blamed for the delay. Such an explanation cannot be accepted. If the petitioner was really aggrieved for his fixation of seniority after submitting his objections, he should have approached the appropriate forum by way of appropriate proceedings. Even assuming for the sake of arguments, the delay on the part of the petitioner can be condoned in view of the bonafide belief of the petitioner that his petition was pending against termination order, then also after 1984, when the Writ Petition was allowed, the petitioner did not do anything and waited till 1992, though the appeals filed by the respondent Municipality were partly allowed way back in July, 89.
(3.) IT may also the stated that initially on this writ petition, the learned Single Judge of this Court granted ad-interim order, in favour of the petitioner and it was ordered that no person junior to the petitioner, on the basis of continuous officiation on the post, shall be promoted to the next higher post. However, the stay order came to be modified on 1. 11. 96. It may be stated that if this Court entertains this petition at such a belated stage in absence of those persons who are going to be adversely affected, then they will definitely suffer. Thus, on the ground of non-joinder of the necessary parties also this petition is required to be dismissed. On merits also, the petitioner has no case which is clear from the reply affidavit. ;