THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 10.12.2012
W.P.(C) 7611/2012
RAMAN NARAIN SHAH ..... Petitioners
versus
GOVT OF NCT DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in these cases:
For the Petitioners : Ms Sumedha Sharma
For the Respondent : Mr Dhanesh Relan with Ms Richa Kaushal for R-1 & R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J. (ORAL) CM No.19305/2012 (Exemption) Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
This application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 7611/2012
1. The order dated 22.11.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (Tribunal) in O.A. No.3939/2010 is under challenge in this writ petition.
W.P.(C) 7611/2012 Page 1 of 4
2. The petitioner had filed the said original application in which he had made the following prayer:-
"8. RELIEF SOUGHT:
PRAYER:-
It is, therefore, most respectfully and humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to:-
(i) Declare the promotions of the juniors to the applicant are null and void and contrary to law.
(ii) Set aside Order No.15(24)/Vig./ACP/DC (N)/525-530 dated 05.04.2010 issued by office of the Deputy Commissioner: North, New Delhi.
(iii) Set aside the Impugned Order
No.F.1(69)/GA/Estt./DC(N)/99/11178-184 dated
27.09.2007 issued by Sh. Vivekananda Sharma of Government of NCT of Delhi, Delhi.
(iv) To allow ACP to the Applicant.
(v) Pass any other or such order(s) as this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit and proper in the light of facts and circumstances of the case."
3. Essentially the petitioner was seeking the benefit of the second ACP. According to the petitioner, while several Group-D employees have been granted the second ACP by virtue of the said order dated 05.04.2010, the petitioner had not been granted that benefit. The learned counsel for the petitioner admits that the benefit was not granted to the petitioner because of the reason that in his case the period 16.01.2005 to 06.03.2005 was treated as W.P.(C) 7611/2012 Page 2 of 4 dies non by virtue of an order dated 27.09.2007. Unless and until that order (i.e. order dated 27.09.2007) was set aside by a superior forum, the petitioner would have no case. Unfortunately, for the petitioner, the said order dated 27.09.2007 was not challenged by him within time.
4. It is the petitioner's case that a representation had been moved against the order dated 27.09.2007 on 19.10.2007. But no order was passed thereon. If that were to be the case then the petitioner would have had a period of six months to wait out before he could approach the Tribunal. Even if during this period of six months no order was passed on the representation, the petitioner could have filed the original application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 within a further period of one year, as is prescribed under Section 21(1)(b) of the said Act. Thus, the petitioner could have approached the Tribunal by 19.04.2009. Unfortunately, for the petitioner he has not challenged the order dated 27.09.2007 within that time. In fact, for the first time, the petitioner challenged the order dated 27.09.2007 by virtue of the said O.A. No.3939/2010 which was filed some time in September, 2010, much beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the said Act.
W.P.(C) 7611/2012 Page 3 of 4
4. We may point out that the Tribunal had committed an error in stating that the order dated 27.09.2007 had not been challenged by the petitioner even in O.A. No.3939/2010. That is not correct. This is evident from the third prayer in the said O.A. itself. However, even if that were to be true, the challenge to the order dated 27.09.2007 came for the first time in O.A. No.3939/2010, which was filed in September, 2010, much beyond the period of limitation.
5. Since the challenge to the order dated 27.09.2007 has become time barred, there is no respite for the petitioner inasmuch as, unless and until the dies non order goes, the petitioner would have no case for grant of ACP benefits in view of the order dated 05.04.2010. Unfortunately for the petitioner, the order dated 27.09.2007 has attained finality.
6. There is no merit in this writ petition. The same is dismissed.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.
DECEMBER 10, 2012 dn W.P.(C) 7611/2012 Page 4 of 4