Delhi High Court
Kedar Nath Dua vs Union Of India & Others on 7 February, 2011
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Writ Petition (Civil) No. 737/2011
Kedar Nath Dua ....Petitioner
Through IN PERSON.
VERSUS
Union of India & Others .....Respondents
Through Mr. Kumar Rajesh Singh, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
% 7.02.2011
SANJIV KHANNA, J:
The petitioner Kedar Nath Dua was selected as a Assistant Station
Master (ASM) Group Students in 1953 and was confirmed in the ASM
grade of Rs.205-280 (authorized scale 425-460) on 8th February, 1968.
He failed in vision test in May, 1975 and as per the recommendation of
Committee for Alternate Jobs, was posted as a Coaching Commercial
Clerk. He was given grade of Rs.260-430 which the petitioner accepted
subject to his objections. However, pay protection was given. After 3-4
months he was granted the next grade of 330-560 and ultimately got
grade of 425-460 after 8 to 10 years. He retired on 31st October, 1986
after attaining the age of superannuation.
2. In 2003, after more than 25 years, the petitioner filed an original
application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench,
New Delhi, challenging and questioning his posting as a Coaching
Commercial Clerk in the grade of 260-430. The allegation was that
another person, one Ramjilal, a goods clerk was promoted to the post
of Assistant Commercial Inspector in the grade of 425-640 after a
month of the petitioner's absorption, ignoring his claim. The tribunal
noticed that the cause of action had accrued in 1975 and the original
application was filed on 20th November, 2003. It was observed that the
petition was highly belated and there was no explanation for the delay.
It was observed that the subject matter of challenge was the
appointment given to the petitioner in 1975 as a Coaching Commercial
Clerk.
3. The aforesaid order of the Central Administrative Tribunal was
passed on 3rd October, 2005. The petitioner did not challenge in
question the said order and has belatedly, after five years, filed the
present writ petition claiming arrears of pay, dearness allowance and
other consequential reliefs against the fixation of his pay in 1975. The
delay between 3rd October, 2005 and filing of the present petition has
not been explained. Merely writing letters and sending representations
after the Central Administrative Tribunal had dismissed the original
application, does not justify or furnish explanation for the delay
between 2005 and 2010. As noticed above there has been delay and
latches at every stage.
4. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, we are not inclined to entertain
the present petition and the same is dismissed in limine.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
CHIEF JUSTICE
February 07, 2011
Bisht/VKR
