2020 (11) TMI 1004 - HC - Central Excise

Pay fixation in respect of employees appointed to Selection Grade in Pre-revised between 1-1-1986 and 12-9-1986 - M.R.O.M.No.7(21)-E.III(A)/74 dated 10-1-1977 - HELD THAT - If at all the writ petitioner is aggrieved regarding the grant of increment with effect from 01.02.1999 he should have filed appropriate application before the Central Administrative Tribunal along with his colleague during the relevant point of time. Contrarily, he cannot file a litigation seeking the very same benefit after several years, since the case filed by his colleague has attained finality. Such an attitude of a Government Servant cannot be encouraged by the Courts. An aggrieved person should approach the court of law within a reasonable period of time. Especially, the writ petitioner was working in the responsible post of Inspector of Central Excise. Thus, he is aware of the rules and regulations and as well as the service rights. Whenever his service conditions are affected he is at liberty to approach the competent forum for redressal. Contrarily, he cannot file a writ petition based on the orders passed in some other case with reference to the Original Application filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal in the year 2005. If such writ petitions are entertained, all other retired employees will approach this Court after a lapse of many years seeking the similar relief. Thus, the said conduct of the writ petitioner in approaching the Court of law belatedly cannot be encouraged. The present writ petition is filed by the writ petitioner at the age of 68 years after a lapse of 10 years from the date of retirement seeking the benefit of arrears of increment from 01.02.1999. Now, he would be around 74 years. Thus being the factum established, the writ petitioner undoubtedly slept over his right and therefore, he cannot wake up one fine morning and knock the doors of the Court for seeking remedy - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing of order regarding pay fixation for employees appointed to Selection Grade.
2. Entitlement to arrears of increment and pension revision.
3. Delay in approaching the court for seeking remedy.

Analysis:
1. The writ petition sought to quash an order related to pay fixation for employees appointed to Selection Grade between specific dates. The petitioner's counsel argued that a previous High Court order provided a cause of action for the present petition. It was claimed that the petitioner was entitled to arrears of increment and pension revision based on certain memorandums and tribunal orders. The petitioner's service history and pension details were outlined to support the claim. However, the court noted that the petitioner should have raised concerns in a timely manner and not waited for several years after a colleague's case concluded. The court emphasized the importance of approaching the appropriate forum promptly when service conditions are affected, rather than relying on delayed litigation based on previous cases.

2. The petitioner, a retired government servant, filed the writ petition at the age of 68, seeking arrears of increment from a specific date. The court highlighted that the petitioner, now around 74 years old, had significantly delayed in asserting his rights. The court stressed that such delays cannot be condoned, especially when the petitioner was well-versed in rules and regulations due to his previous role as an Inspector of Central Excise. The judgment emphasized the need for aggrieved individuals to approach the court within a reasonable period and not wait for years before seeking remedies. The court concluded that the petitioner's prolonged inaction precluded him from seeking relief at a later stage, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition without costs.

3. In summary, the judgment underscores the importance of timely legal action in addressing grievances related to service conditions. It highlights that delayed petitions based on past cases set a problematic precedent and discourage prompt resolution of disputes. The court's decision to dismiss the petition due to the petitioner's significant delay in seeking remedy serves as a reminder of the necessity for timely legal recourse in matters affecting service rights and entitlements.