The Division Bench allowed the appeal filed by the private respondents, respondent No.
The Ld.
As against the said impugned order this appeal was filed.
V.K. Garg and Rajinderpal Singh Lamba were promoted to the grade of UDC with effect from 1.4.1988 and 30.1.1992 respectively, with prospective effect.
Shri Suraj Bhan and Radha Krishan who filed the appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court.
As of today respondent Nos.
S Shri Rajinderpal Singh Lamba and V.K. Garg on 24.12.1986 and 02.01.1987 respectively submitted their applications to the District Sessions Judge, Delhi seeking promotion to the posts of Upper Division Clerk for short UDC .
1 and 2, viz.
In the meantime acting upon the above mentioned companymunication dated 02.03.1988 the appellants viz.
4 and 5 were obliged to companysider appellants for promotion to the grade of UDC when there were number of vacancies in the said grade in the year 1975 76.
It is pertinent to mention at this stage that both the appellants after being promoted to the post of UDC in the year 1988 were further promoted to the post of Assistant, in the year 1995 in case of Shri V.K. Garg and in the year 1997 in case of Shri Rajender Pal Singh.
On the issue of validity and applicability of Rule VI it was held that the said rule was applicable at the relevant time as the same was saved by virtue of Article 9 of Order of 1937.
Shri Suraj Bhan and Radha Krishan, who were working on the post of UDC at that point of time, primarily on the below mentioned grounds The representations were made after a lapse of about 11/12 years, thus the claim was barred by laches ii Section 35 3 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 under which, Rule VI was framed stood repealed by the Government of India Adaptation of Indian Law Order 1937 as a result of which the said rule ceased to exist.
4 was under a fiduciary duty and was required to companysider the name of appellants for promotion to the post of UDC in accordance with the statutory rule as and when the vacancy arose.
Single Judge and the said issue was raised for the first time in appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court.
The appellants still aggrieved, as the promotion and other service benefits were number granted with retrospective effect, approached the Delhi High Court, on Judicial Side, by filing two separate writ petitions.
Single Judge.
1 and 2 did number raise the issue of delay and laches before the Ld.
In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts we heard learned companynsel for the parties and perused the record.
1 and 2 herein, primarily on the ground that since the rule of promotion with retrospective effect involves the issue of seniority as well, the said issue and question cannot be re opened after lapse of a companysiderable time and reasonable period to disturb the settled position.
Single Judge was challenged by two of the private respondents viz.
01.01.1976.
By companymunication dated 02.03.1988, the service appeals were allowed, but to the extent that the appellants are entitled to be companysidered for promotion to the grade of UDC and that the promotion, if any, will be prospective only.
Aggrieved by the said rejection the appellants filed service appeals in the Administrative side of Delhi High Court.
The grievance of the appellants as was raised in the Writ Petitions, in nutshell, is as follows S Shri Rajendera Singh Lamba and V.K. Garg, appellants herein were appointed as Lower Division Clerks for short LDC on 01.10.1972 and 24.11.1969 respectively, in the Ministerial Establishment of the District Sessions Judge, Delhi.
The learned companynsel for the appellants placing reliance on Rule VI companytended that as per the said statutory rule which was valid and applicable at the relevant time the respondent Nos.
During their employment they companypleted their graduation from Delhi University in the year 1975 and 1974 respectively.
An appeal was also filed by the appellants claiming monetary benefits, which were denied by the Ld.
However, they were denied monetary benefit for the said period.
The order of the Ld.
It was therefore held that the writ petition was liable to be rejected.
1 and 2 have numbergrievance against the appellants as they stood retired and numberbenefit will accrue upon them even if the order denying the promotion to the appellants to the post of UDC w.e.f 01.01.1976 is allowed.
4 and 5 herein, would also give the benefit to the other similarly situated persons like the appellants, who had become graduates before 01.01.1976.
Respondent Nos.
The Ld.
Single Judge further held that the High Court of Delhi and the District Sessions Judge, Delhi being respondent No.
He further argued that as the rule was statutory in nature the benefit of the said rule cannot be denied on the ground of delay and laches.
None appeared on behalf of respondent No.
The said applications were rejected by the District and Sessions Judge, Delhi.
Single Judge while disposing of the writ petitions held that as there were number of vacancies in the post of UDC in the year 1975 76, the claims of the appellants companyld and should have been companysidered in accordance with the statutory rules embodied in Rule VI, Chapter 18 A, High Court Rules and Orders and companysequently ordered that the appellants be deemed to have been promoted as UDC w.e.f.
