Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) BY way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner Trilochan Singh has approached this Court assailing the action of the respondents in not extending him the benefits of promotion as Assistant Foreman and Foreman in light of the settlement dated 20.9.1985 arrived at between the respondent IGNP Department and the Rajasthan Nahar Rashtriya Majdoor Union (INTUC), Bikaner. Two other employees, who were similarly placed as the petitioner namely Shri Mangi Lal Gour and Shri Chhabi Singh approached this Court by way of S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 4416/1994 praying for the very same relief. The writ petition was accepted by this Court on 10.1.2003 and it was directed that the petitioners therein were entitled to the actual benefit of promotions w.e.f. 1.9.1985. The aforesaid Shri Mangi Lal and Shri Chhabi Singh were given benefit of the settlement of 1985 in pursuance of the said judgment by an office order dated 5.7.2005, which has been annexed with the writ petition as Annex.5. The petitioner retired from service in the year 1997. It is relevant to mention here that during pendency of the instant writ petition, the petitioner passed away on 2.5.2012 and on an application preferred by his legal representatives, this Court vide order dated 21.5.2014 impleaded them as petitioners in the instant writ petition. Now, only the question of monetary relief survives. During the service tenure of the petitioner, he faced two departmental inquiries, in one of which, he was awarded the penalty of stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect in the year 1992. The other penalty imposed on the petitioner was of censure. The petitioner was further subjected to another departmental inquiry under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules but the said departmental inquiry came to be dropped on 7.1.1998 subsequent to his retirement. After the benefits of the settlement dated 20.9.1985 and consequent promotion was granted to Shri Mangi Lal and Shri Chhabi Singh by order (Annex.5), the petitioner submitted representations to the respondent authorities for being extended the very same benefits The authorities recommended the petitioner's case for grant of promotions by letters (Annex.6 and 7) dated 31.8.2005 and 5.9.2005. However, no further action was forthcoming on the said recommendations upon which the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition. The relief prayed for in the instant writ petition is mainly opposed on the ground of delay.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner places reliance on a Constitution Bench Judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar & Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors reported in : AIR 1974 SC 259 and contends that if no third party rights are created by the belated claim for enforcement of fundamental rights, then the claim filed in this regard cannot be thrown out on the ground of delay. He further submits that denial of financial benefits flowing from promotion is a recurring wrong and thus, as the wrong still continues till date, the writ petition preferred on behalf of the petitioner cannot be termed to be belated. In regard to this context, he places reliance on a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Tarsem Singh reported in : (2008) 11 SCALE 594. He further submits that as the petitioner's prayer for being granted the benefits of promotion was under consideration as is evident from the recommendations (Annex.6 and 7) dated 31.8.2005 and 5.9.2005, it cannot be said that the lis is belated. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition deserves to be accepted and the respondents be directed to extend the benefits of two promotions as Assistant Foreman and Foreman in terms of the settlement dated 20.9.1985 akin to the benefits granted to Mangi Lal and Chhabi Singh by order (Annex.5) and to make payment of the consequential monetary benefits flowing therefrom to the petitioner's legal representatives. Per contra, Shri K.D. Singh, the learned Dy.GC appearing for the respondents has opposed the writ petition principally on the ground of delay. He however candidly concedes that the department itself did not dispute the petitioner's right to be promoted in light of the settlement dated 20.9.1985 as is evident from the recommendations (Annex.6 and 7) dated 31.8.2005 and 5.9.2005. However, the only opposition to the prayer made in the instant writ petition is that the petitioner raised challenge to the alleged illegal action of the respondents after an unexplained and undue delay of nearly 20 years and therefore, is not entitled to the claimed relief. In this regard, he places reliance on the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Kamlesh Sharma Vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. reported in, 2009 WLC (Raj.) UC -126. He thus, prays that the writ petition should be dismissed on the ground of delay.
(3.) HEARD and considered the arguments advanced at the bar and perused the material available on record.;