Q: I used to work for a central government corporation. During my tenure of service, on several occasions since 1981, I had been denied promotions and was superseded by cadre junior to me on ?merit-cum-qualification? basis. I had filed many complaints over the years and was always assured by the higher authorities that the matter would be looked into but ultimately nothing was done. In the meantime, I was also promoted from time to time and eventually, I took voluntary retirement in 2001. Will there be any point in filing a writ petition challenging the promotions of junior cadre and for re-fixation of seniority, as this will no doubt be to my financial benefit?
S. Dutta, Darjeeling
A: Strictly as a legal proposition, you have a right to challenge the decision allowing a junior to supersede you if it is done in violation of the applicable rules governing your service, but your case would depend on the stand adopted by the court in respect of the apparent delay of nearly 25 years from the time your cause of action first arose. Even though it can be argued that there is no time limit for filing a writ petition, it is settled that the power of the high court under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary, and in exercising such discretion, the court would take into account the explanation for delay and the latches, if any, of the petitioner for not filing the petition.
Ordinarily, the court would not assist an ?indolent? litigant or one who appears to have accepted the order he is challenging. You appear to have accepted subsequent promotions even after 1981 when you claim to have been discriminated against for the first time. Further, you have taken voluntary retirement four years ago and taken all the benefits there under. Now after all these years, you want to reopen the issue, which will not only cause inconvenience and confusion but would adversely affect third party rights that may have intervened in the meantime.
Seeking the re-fixation of the seniority list would have a ripple effect affecting the lives of other unconcerned persons who may have altered their position on account of lapse of time. The odds are stacked against you. Having said all that, each case depends largely on unique facts and circumstances and there is no rigid rule as to the extent the courts will stretch their discretion. The Supreme Court has observed on several occasions the exercise of such discretion ?cannot be cast in a strait-jacket formula?. Ultimately, it is a question of conscience. If you can make out a compelling case, on merits and on equity, the courts may even interfere despite the delay. After all, the courts are there to promote justice and not defeat it.
Send your letters to Inlaw at The Telegraph,
Jobs Desk, 6 Prafulla Sarkar Street,
Calcutta 700001;
or fax at 225 3142;
or send e-mails to jobs@abpmail.com.
