Delhi High Court
Shri S.R.Saini & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 28 February, 2012
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on 28.02.2012
+ W.P.(C) 1150/2012
SHRI S.R.SAINI & ORS. ... Petitioners
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Mr Pramod Kumar Sharma
For the Respondent : Mr Jatan Singh and Mr Tushar Singh
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED (ORAL)
1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 12.08.2011 passed by the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, whereby their
Original Application being O.A. No. 2934/2011 was rejected on the ground of
limitation.
2. The petitioners had initially approached the Tribunal by way of an Original
Application being O.A. No.754/2005. The said Original Application had been
rejected. However, on the filing of a review application, the same was restored and
ultimately it was disposed of by an order dated 01.08.2008. The Tribunal, inter
alia, directed as under:-
"3. OA stands disposed of with a direction to the
respondents to treat the present OA as a representation of
the applicants and consider their request to fix their
pay-scale w.e.f. 1.1.1986 under Rule 7 of the CCS(RP)
Rule, 1986, as done in identically situated employees
cases, just because the applicants were not applicants
there would not amount to depriving him of the equal
treatment. A reasoned order should follow within two
months from the date of the receipt of a copy of this
order."
3. It is relevant to note that OA No.754/2005 where the petitioners had initially
sought fixation of pay under Rule 7 Note 3 (bunching) of the CCS (Revised Pay)
Rules 1986 as per the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission was not
dismissed or rejected on the ground of limitation. The specific direction was given
that the OA be treated as a representation and the respondents should pass a
speaking order. It is pursuant to that the respondents passed a speaking order dated
22.04.2009. The material portion of which reads as under:-
"4. In view of the above, it has not been found feasible
to accede to the request of the representationists to fix
their pay under the provisions of Rule 7 of CCS(RP)
Rules, 1986. Further, it is reiterated that employees in
EDP cadre of JCB have not been treated in a manner
different from the employees of EDP cadres in other
wings of this Ministry. The pay of the representationists
have been fixed as done in the cases of identically
situated employees of EDP cadres in other wings of
Ministry of Defence.
5. This order is being issued in compliance with
directions of the Hon'ble Tribunal in judgment dated
1st August, 2008 in RA No. 200/205 in OA 754/2005."
4. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 22.04.2009, the petitioners filed
O.A. No.2934/2011. The prayer in the said OA was as under:-
"a) direct the respondents to quashing the office order dated
22.04.2009 where the respondents have rejected the claim of
the applicants and be pleased to direct the respondents to fix
the pay of the applicants under Rule 7 Note 3(bunching)
CCS(Revised Pay) Rules 1986 as suggested by the IV Pay
Commission with all consequential benefits as Government
of India have already been fixed the pay of the other
employees working in different Ministries under Rule 7
Note 3 (bunching) CCS(Revised Pay) Rules 1986 as
suggested by the IV Pay Commission."
5. It is apparent from the prayer itself that what the petitioners were challenging
essentially was the order dated 22.04.2009 whereby the petitioners' claim for
fixation of pay, as indicated above, was rejected by the respondents.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that even after the
passing of the order dated 22.04.2009, the department was considering further
representations made by them. Unfortunately, this does not extend the point of
time from where the clock starts running for the purpose of limitation, because
insofar as the petitioners are concerned the final order had already been passed on
22.04.2009 and the clock had started to run then itself. Any further representations
made by them would not extend the date from which the period of limitation would
commence.
7. By virtue of the impugned order, the Tribunal has dismissed the petitioners'
said Original Application on the ground of limitation inasmuch as the Original
Application had not been filed within one year of the passing of the order dated
22.04.2009 which was a final order. Section 21(1) (a) of the Administrative
Tribunals Act, 1985 prohibits the Tribunal from admitting an application in a case
where a final order has been made unless the Original Application is filed within
one year from the date on which the final order has been made. Of course, the
Tribunal has the power to condone the delay if sufficient cause for not making the
application within the stipulated period is shown by the petitioners. Unfortunately,
in this case, the petitioners did not even file an application for condonation of
delay. The Original Application in question was filed on 27.07.2011 which was
more than two years after the passing of the impugned order dated 22.04.2009.
The Tribunal, in rejecting the petitioners' application on the ground of limitation,
in our view, has not committed any error of law. Consequently, the writ petition is
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
V.K.JAIN, J
FEBRUARY 28,2012
'sn'
