Lijum Karbak And Anr vs. The State Of Ap And 2 Ors

Facts

The petitioners, Lijum Karbak and Karpe Ete, were initially appointed as Village Level Workers (Junior) in 1998 by the Director of Agriculture, Government of Arunachal Pradesh. Their post was later re-designated as Agriculture Field Assistant (AFA). In 2001, they were appointed as Assistant Marketing Inspectors (AMI), allegedly on a pick-and-choose basis, and their services were regularised in 2004. The petitioners claim their service conditions were altered without notice and that they receive less pay than their juniors promoted to AFA (Senior). They sought quashing of the 2004 regularisation order and promotion to AFA (Senior) from the date their juniors were promoted. The writ petition was filed in 2024, challenging an order from 2004.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition lacked merit and was dismissed. The primary reason for dismissal was the significant delay of approximately 20 years in challenging the order dated 15-10-2004, which regularised the petitioners' services as Marketing Inspectors (MI). The Court found that the petitioners had accepted the fruits of this order without demur and their subsequent representations in 2010 and 2017 did not justify assailing an order of such antiquity. The Court reasoned that interfering with the 2004 order at this stage would relegate the petitioners back to ad-hoc service as AMI and AFA (Junior), causing more injustice than benefit. Furthermore, the Court noted that such an exercise would have a cascading effect on administration, potentially affecting the seniority and pay of other employees and unsettling long-settled matters. The Court distinguished the cited case of Ram Autar Singh Yadav, finding it inapplicable to service matters where delay and laches, as per precedents like Shiv Dass and Tarsem Singh, are crucial factors. The Court also highlighted the practical difficulties in re-fixing pay and determining the fallout of actions taken by the petitioners as MI if they were reverted.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners' claim for promotion to AFA (Senior) and re-fixation of pay is maintainable given the significant delay in challenging the order dated 15-10-2004, which regularised their services as Marketing Inspectors (MI)? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contended that even with a delay, the Court can exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, citing Ram Autar Singh Yadav v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Others. They argued that the creation of AMI and AFA (Senior) posts of equivalent status, but with disparate pay scales, and the lack of recruitment rules for AMI/MI posts, warrant interference. They also argued that their appointments to AMI were made without following due procedure, leading to pay disparity. Respondent's arguments: The respondents, represented by the learned standing counsel for the Agriculture Department, relied on their filed affidavit. The Court noted that the respondents did not explicitly argue on the delay but implicitly supported the dismissal of the petition based on the facts and legal precedents.