Maj. Gen. R P Mund v. Union of India & Ors

judgment dated 18.8.1999."

In P. Sadashivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1974 SC 2271, the Supreme Court ruled that unreasonable delay in seeking redress of

promotional claims disentitles a litigant to relief: "..it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the Courts to refuse to exercise their extra-ordinary powers under Article 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the Court to put forward stale claims and try to unsettle settled matters-The petitioner's petition should, therefore have been dismissed in limine. Entertaining such petitions is a waste of time of the court. It clogs the work of the Court and impedes the work of the court in considering legitimate grievances as also its normal work. We consider that the High court was right in dismissing the appellant's petition as well as the appeal."

Recently, in State of Uttaranchal v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari 2013 (12) SCC 179, it was held that: "in the case at hand the seniority has not been disturbed in the promotional cadre and no promotions may be unsettled. There may not be unsettlement of the settled position but, a pregnant one, the respondents chose to sleep like Rip Van Winkle and got up from their slumber at their own leisure, for some reason which is fathomable to them only. But such fathoming of reasons by oneself is not countenanced in law. Any one who sleeps over his right is bound to suffer. As we perceive neither the tribunal nor the High Court has appreciated these aspects in proper perspective and proceeded on the base that a junior was promoted and, therefore, the seniors cannot be denied the promotion. Remaining oblivious to the factum of delay and laches and granting relief is contrary to all settled principles and even would not remotely attract the concept of discretion."

¶17This Court is conscious of the fact that a review DGQA was constituted in April, 2015 which has recommended that Mund's permanent secondment be treated effective from July, 2005. But the undeniable

consequence of allowing this recommendation to be given effect is to undo the settled seniority of Shamsher Singh (and of other officers who were shown as Mund's seniors in the previous seniority lists). Furthermore, seniority in the higher ranks based on different QASBs held, would also be disturbed. Clearly, Shamsher Singh's arguments on this score are substantial and merited. Having acquiesced or slept over the issue, Mund is now precluded from claiming a superior right, i.e. date of permanent secondment which would place him above Shamsher Singh and trigger a review of all intervening QASBs for the purpose of ante dating his promotion to higher ranks.

¶18For the above reasons, it is held that the relief sought by Major General R.P. Mund in his writ petition cannot be granted; the directions sought by Major General Shamsher Singh are hereby granted; the MoD and DGQA are hereby enjoined to forbear from giving effect to any recommendation which would result in loss of seniority of Major General Shamsher Singh. W.P.(C) 3217/2015 fails and is dismissed; W.P.(C) 4234/2015 succeeds and is allowed. There shall be no order on costs.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT (JUDGE)

DEEPA SHARMA (JUDGE) SEPTEMBER 30, 2015

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 23.09.2015 Pronounced on: 30.09.2015 + W.P.(C) 3217/2015, C.M. NO.5752/2015 MAJOR GENERAL R.P. MUND ……Petitioner Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. …..Respondents + W.P.(C) 4234/2015, C.M. NO.7668/2015 MAJOR GENERAL SHAMSHER SINGH ……Petitioner Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. …..Respondents Through : Ms. Rekha Palli, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Ankita Patnaik, Ms. Punam Singh and Ms. Shruti Munjal, Advocates, for petitioner in W.P.(C) 3217/2015. Ms. Jyoti Singh, Sr. Advocate with Sh. Dinesh Yadav, Ms. Tinu Bajwa, Sh. A.D. Joshi and Sh. Sameer Sharma, Advocates, for petitioner in W.P.(C) 4234/2015 and Respondent No.5 in W.P.(C) 3217/2015. Ms. Bharathi Raju with Sh. Ankur Chhibber, Advocates, for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in both the matters. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT % 1. These two writ petitions involve decision on common questions of fact and law. The petitioner in W.P.(C) 3217/2015, Major General R.P Mund (hereafter "Mund") claims quashing of the seniority list issued by the Director General Quality Assurance (DGQA) on 12.11.2014 and finalized on 12.12.2014. He also seeks a declaration that he is entitled to be treated as permanently seconded to the DGQA with effect from 13.07.2005 instead of 19-01-2006 and thus, senior to the fifth respondent - who is also the petitioner in W.P.(C) 4234/2015, i.e. Major General Shamsher Singh (hereafter "Shamsher Singh"). The latter, in the second writ petition, seeks a direction that his seniority position shown in the seniority over that of Mund should not be altered and that he was permanently seconded to the DGQA before him. 2. To understand the controversy, it is necessary to lay out certain essential facts. Service officers from various Armed Forces and services are initially inducted from their respective establishments, including the Indian Army into DGQA on tenure basis. They are subsequently granted permanent secondment subject to fulfillment of prescribed eligibility criteria contained in policy letters of the Union Ministry of Defense (MoD) or DGQA. Upon secondment to DGQA, they are governed by the terms and conditions contained in MoD OM No. 67952/ Q/ DGI (Adm-4)/10412/D (Prod) dated 28.10.1978 and MoD OM No 21 (4) / 92 / D (Inspection) dated 04.05.1993. One of the conditions - spelt out in the latter circular, is that the concerned officer should not have been "permanently superseded" in the Indian Army. 'officers of the rank of Major/Lt Col (including Lt Col (TS)) will be considered for permanent secondment subject to fulfilling the eligibility criteria'. It further states that final orders for permanent secondment can be be issued only after the selected officers' willingness has been obtained in writing. The officers once permanently seconded will continue in the organization till their retirement and are included in the Cadre Seniority list of Permanently Seconded Service Officers according to their dates of seniority as Substantive Major, as modified based on the penalties/loss of seniority in the parent corps and would be considered for promotion to higher ranks based on availability of vacancies in respective disciplines. 3. It is not in dispute that Mund was ranked senior in the Indian Army before Shamsher Singh- the former in fact became substantive Major on 17.12.1989, whereas Shamsher Singh acquired that position on 22.12.1990. Mund was posted to a unit of DGQA as a tenure officer with effect from 16.01.2002. He had joined DGQA as a finally non-empanelled officer who was rejected thrice (maximum permissible chances) for the promotion to the rank of Colonel in the Army. He was in the Engineering Discipline whereas Shamsher Singh is in Armament Discipline. On completion of one year in DGQA, Mund was considered for permanent secondment in 2003 but was not approved because he was a finally "non-empanelled officer". Mund had submitted a Statutory Compla