ORDER (ORAL)
Mr. A. K. Bhakta, learned counsel, appears on behalf of the applicant. Ms. Vertika Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 5 who appears through virtual mode alongwith Ms. Khusboo confirms of having received an advance copy of the OA.
2. By way of the present OA, the applicant seeks the following relief(s):
"8. Relief Sought:-
In view of above this Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased
(i) To direct the respondents to consider seniority of the applicant at appropriate plaice i.e. above Sh. Vikas Narayan Khana (Sl. No.262) and declare that the applicant is senior to Sh. Vikas Narayan Khana in Draft seniority List dated 01.01.2005 of Engineering Assistant because the applicant is throughout senior to Sh. Vikas Narayan Khanna from the date of birth, entry in service as Engineering Assistant (EA), date of confirmation and joining in North Zone under Internal Zone Transfer (IZT) on request basis without TA&DA.
(ii) To direct the respondents to consider the representations dated 22.01.2025, 12.08.2024, 16.11.2023 [Annexure A/1 (Colly)] of the applicant and release all the service benefits at par junior of the applicant Sh. Vikas Narayan Khanna passing the reasoned and speaking Order in accordance with law.
(iii) To direct the respondents to produce entire relevant record before this Hon'ble Tribunal for proper adjudication.
(iv) pass any order(s) against the Respondents to pay cost/damages for mental agony, continued harassment, for causing disrepute to honest image of Applicant and litigation expenses;
(v) To pass such other order (s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the favour of the applicant to meet the end of justice.
9. Interim Relief:-
In view of above this Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased direct the respondents to consider the representations
3
22.01.2025, 12.08.2024, 16.11.2023 of the applicant passing reasoned and speaking Order in accordance with law in accordance with law."
2. The main issue in this matter relates to seniority. The applicant is claiming seniority over his juniors and states that the Draft Seniority List was issued in the year 2004 and the applicant is aggrieved by the discrepancy in his seniority in the above mentioned Seniority List.
3. The applicant has not agitated the cause of action which arose on 05.07.2005 and has filed the instant OA on 10.06.2025, which came up for hearing on 17.06.2025. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant made several representations dated 22.01.2025, 12.08.2024 and 16.11.2023 to the respondents in detail explaning issues relating to his seniority with evidences with a prayer to correct his seniority at appropriate place and release all the service benefits at par with his junior, namely, Sh. Vikas Narayan Khanna, but the respondents are neither considering the genuine grievances of the applicant nor deciding the same in reasoned and speaking order.
4. From the above, it reveals that the applicant is a fence sitter and was waiting for his retirement to agitate his grievance. Therefore, the matter is hit by latches.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ajay Kumar Shukla vs Arvind Rai in Civil Appeal No. 5966/2021 decided
4
on 8 December, 2021 has held in paragraphs 24, 25, 26, 34 and 35 as under:
"24. We may now discuss the law on the point regarding delay in approaching the court and in particular challenge to a seniority list. The learned Single Judge had placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Shiba Shankar Mohapatra v. State of Orissa [Shiba Shankar Mohapatra v. State of Orissa, (2010) 12 SCC 471 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 229] . Dr B.S. Chauhan, J., after considering the question of entertaining the petition despite long-standing seniority filed at a belated stage discussed more than a dozen cases on the point including Constitution Bench judgments [Ed. : The reference appears to be to Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar v. State of Maharashtra, (1974) 1 SCC 317 : 1974 SCC (L&S) 137 and Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi, (1969) 1 SCC 110] and ultimately in para 30 observed that a seniority list which remains in existence for more than three to four years unchallenged should not be disturbed. It is also recorded in para 30 that in case someone agitates the issue of seniority beyond period of three to four years he has to explain the delay and laches in approaching the adjudicatory forum by furnishing satisfactory explanation. Para 30 is reproduced below : (SCC pp. 483-84)
"30. Thus in view of the above, the settled legal proposition that emerges is that once the seniority had been fixed and it remains in existence for a reasonable period, any challenge to the same should not be entertained. In K.R. Mudgal [K.R. Mudgal v. R.P. Singh, (1986) 4 SCC 531 : 1987 SCC (L&S) 6] , this Court has laid down, in crystal clear words that a seniority list which remains in existence for 3 to 4 years unchallenged, should not be disturbed. Thus, 3-4 years is a reasonable period for challenging the seniority and in case someone agitates the issue of seniority beyond this period, he has to explain the delay and laches in approaching the adjudicatory forum, by furnishing satisfactory explanation."
5
25. On the other hand, the Division Bench while shutting out the appellants on the ground of delay relied upon the following judgments of this Court:
(i) Dayaram Asanand Gursahani v. State of Maharashtra [Dayaram Asanand Gursahani v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 3 SCC 36 : 1984 SCC (L&S) 341]
(ii) B.S. Bajwa v. State of Punjab [B.S. Bajwa v. State of Punjab, (1998) 2 SCC 523 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 611]
(iii) Malcom Lawrence Cecil D'Souza v. Union of India [Malcom Lawrence Cecil D'Souza v. Union of India, (1976) 1 SCC 599 : 1976 SCC (L&S) 115]
(iv) R.S. Makashi v. I.M. Menon [R.S. Makashi v. I.M. Menon, (1982) 1 SCC 379 : 1982 SCC (L&S) 77]
26. In Dayaram A. Gursahani [Dayaram Asanand Gursahani v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 3 SCC 36 : 1984 SCC (L&S) 341] , there was a delay of 9 years. In B.S. Bajwa [B.S. Bajwa v. State of Punjab, (1998) 2 SCC 523 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 611] , there was a delay of more than a decade. In Malcom Lawrence Cecil D'Souza [Malcom Lawrence Cecil D'Souza v. Union of India, (1976) 1 SCC 599 : 1976 SCC (L&S) 115] , the delay was of 15 years and in R.S. Makashi [R.S. Makashi v. I.M. Menon, (1982) 1 SCC 379 : 1982 SCC (L&S) 77] there was a delay of 8 years. In all these cases, this Court has recorded that the delay has not been explained. Shiba Shankar Mohapatra [Shiba Shankar Mohapatra v. State of Orissa, (2010)
12 SCC 471 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 229] is a judgment of 2010, which has laid down that three to four years would be a reasonable period to challenge a seniority list and also that any challenge beyond the aforesaid period would require satisfactory explanation.34. After coming of Rules 2009, fresh exercise was undertaken for preparation of seniority list. A tentative list was notified by the Office Order dated 29.12.2009. This Office Order mentions that the seniority list has to be prepared according to
6
1991 Rules. While dealing with the finalization of this tentative list, vide office order dated 05.03.2010, we find reference to disposal of an objection by Mahesh Chand Bagani and Mahesh Kumar in which they had apparently sought clarification regarding the requisition send to the Commission and other related aspects. In paragraph 11 of the Office Order, it is mentioned that the Commission had forwarded the three lists of the Agriculture, Mechanical and Civil streams separately on 06.01.2000, 27.01.2000 and 07.11.2000 respectively. It further mentioned that it was in that sequence i.e. the date of receiving that the combined seniority was assessed. Thus, again the seniority list was finalized in the same sequence as the three lists have been received and in that order. It is thereafter that the representations were made that the seniority list of the direct recruits of 2001 was wrongly prepared contrary to the Rules, however, when no action was taken, Rajiv Nain Upadhyay and fourteen others approached the High Court by way of W.P. No.53123 of 2012 in October 2012 which was within a period of two to two and half years and till such time they had been pursuing their representation after office order dated 05.03.2010. From the above facts, it is clear that in the first contingency or in the second contingency, the appellants cannot be found at fault. The Division Bench committed an error in holding that the claim lodged by the appellant suffered from delay and laches.
27. In view of the above legal proposition, we now examine the facts of the present case, firstly, as to whether there was delay of more than three to four years and secondly, if there was delay of more than three to four years, whether the same has been satisfactorily explained.
xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
35. The plea to defend the seniority list prepared contrary to the statutory provisions on the ground of delay would be a difficult proposition. Apart from the submission of the appellants that there is no delay as they came to know of the three separate lists only in March, 2010, even if it is assumed that there was some delay and a
7
fresh seniority list was being prepared in 2009-2010 again contrary to the provisions of statutory rules, such seniority list cannot be sustained or defended on the ground of delay of five years."
6. It is also trite that repeated representations do not cover the delay in agitating the cause of action. It could be seen that to cover up the delay caused by the applicant in raising this objection he has referred to the representations filed by him from 16.11.2023 to 22.01.2025, whereas, the cause of action arose way back on
05.07.2025.
7. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the instant OA does not have any ground to explain the huge delay of around two decades and nor the applicant has filed any miscellaneous application explaining the delay and seeking condonation of delay in filing the captioned OA. Accordingly, the OA deserves to be dismissed at admission stage itself. Pending MAs, if any, stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
(Rajinder Kashyap) Member (A)
/ks/