ORDER G.S. Pattanaik and U.C. Banerjee, JJ
1. This appeal is directed against the impugned order of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 612/1990. By the impugned order, the Tribunal rejected the claim of the appellants solely on the ground of delay and laches on the part of the appellants in approaching the Tribunal. The appellants are promotee officers to the Indian Forest Service, and on promotion they have been allotted 1976 as the year of allotment. The seniority of theirs has been determined by treating them to be 1976 allottees, and the common gradation list was prepared as early as on 3.5.1983. The year of allotment in favour of appellants in the year 1976 was assailed before the Tribunal by the direct recruits in O.A. No. 611/1986, and the present appellants were arrayed as party-respondents in the same. That application was dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that the direct recruits have approached the Tribunal after a long lapse of time, obviously, contentions being raised on behalf of the present appellants, who were respondents therein. There is positive finding in the earlier order of the Tribunal that the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests has, in fact, communicated the common gradation list in his proceedings dated 3.5.1983.Subsequent to the order of the Tribunal in the earlier case, the appellants appear to have filed a representation before the Central Government seeking allotment year of 1974, and that representation having been rejected, they approached the Tribunal in 1990. The Tribunal in the impugned order came to the conclusion that the applicants having approached the Tribunal after long lapse of time, there has been gross laches and as such, the same should not be entertained. It is this order of the Tribunal, which is being assailed in this appeal.
2. Mr. Gururaja Rao appearing for the appellants vehemently contended that the Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the application on the ground of laches on the part of the appellants, particularly when there is a positive assertion of the appellants that they did not know of earlier gradation list prior to the order of the Tribunal in the earlier case filed at the instance of the dir(sic)recruits; Even if that is assumed to be correct, notwithstanding a position(sic)finding of the Tribunal in the earlier proceedings wherein the appellants were party-respondents to the effect that the Principal Chief Conservator or Fore(sic)has, in fact, communicated the common gradation list dated 3.5.1983, even (sic)there was no rationale or logic on the part of the appellants to file representation to the Central Government claiming that the order of allotment should be 1974. Even if they have come to know of the gradation list during the course of the proceedings in 1986, we see no justification for their not approaching the appropriate authority within a reasonable time, and having waited for more than 3 years they have approached only in the year 1990. We therefore, do not see any illegality with the order of the Tribunal dismissing the claim of the appellants on the ground of laches. Before us, four authorities of this Court have been cited in support of the contention that application ought not to have been rejected on the ground of laches only. But in each and every case what has been noticed is that the question whether the discretion of the court or the Tribunal should be exercised for condoning the laches would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In the case in hand when the Tribunal itself has recorded a finding in the earlier case that the gradation list had been duly communicated in the year 1983, we must assume that the applicants knew of the gradation list assigning them the year of allotment as 1976, in 1983, and therefore the so called representation filed by the appellants to the Central Government after disposal of the earlier application filed by the direct recruits is nothing but a subterfuge to get period of fresh limitation. This method adopted by the appellants disentitles them of any relief. That apart, the gradation list of the year 1983 allotting 1976 as the year of allotment to the appellants have almost settled the seniority list, which need not be disturbed after this length of time. We, therefore, see no infirmity with the impugned order of the Tribunal requiring our interference in the matter. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.