THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 09.05.2012
+ W.P.(C) 2729/2012
SURENDRA KUMAR VERMA AND ORS ... Petitioner
versus
GNCT OF DELHI AND ORS ... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr C. Rajaram Iyer
For the Respondent Nos.1-5 : Ms Zubeda Begum
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) CM 5879/2012 Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
WP(C) 2729/2012 & CM 5880/2012
1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the dismissal of their Original Application 802/2012 by virtue of the impugned order dated 27.03.2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, on the ground of limitation.
WP (C) No.2729/2012 Page 1 of 3
2. The applicants were appointed to the post of Console Operators, which was regarded as a Group 'C' non-gazetted post in the pay scale of ` 5500-9000, in 1990. They were employed with the Government of NCT of Delhi and were posted in the Transport Department. Subsequently, the said post of Console Operator was declared as a Group 'B' post in the scale of ` 5500-175-9000 by virtue of a notification dated 13.07.2001. Thereafter, the said post of Console Operator was merged with the post of Assistant Programmer, which was also a Group 'B' gazetted post with the Government of NCT of Delhi. The issue that was sought to be agitated by the petitioners before the Tribunal was pertaining to their seniority.
3. The Tribunal considered the fact that the issue raised before them was belated in the sense that the tentative list had been published by the respondents on 22.09.2009 by which objections were invited from the officers concerned. In the tentative seniority list, the petitioners were at the bottom. The petitioners submitted their objections on 06.10.2009 which was duly considered by the respondents and the same was rejected on 15.12.2009. The Tribunal has noted that the respondents had duly considered the objections raised by the petitioners and they were informed WP (C) No.2729/2012 Page 2 of 3 that the case had been placed before the committee chaired by the Secretary (IT) and the said Committee was of the view that the seniority cannot be granted to them with effect from 13.07.2001. The rejection dated 15.12.2009 has become final. The petitioners did not challenge the same before the Tribunal within the prescribed period of one year as specified under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal's Act, 1985. It was also pointed out by the Tribunal that the petitioners had not filed any condonation of delay application along with their said Original Application. Thus, purely on the ground of limitation, the Tribunal has dismissed the petitioner's said Original Application. We see no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's decision inasmuch as the Tribunal has merely followed the prescription of Section 21 of the said Act.
4. The writ petition has no merit. The same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J V.K. JAIN, J MAY 09, 2012 SR WP (C) No.2729/2012 Page 3 of 3