Delhi High Court
Ram Singh vs Uoi & Ors on 13 January, 2012
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 13.01.2012
+ W.P.(C) 247/2012
RAM SINGH ... Petitioner
versus
UOI & ORS ... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Mr Puran Chand
For the Respondent No.1 : Mr B. V. Niren
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
CM 518/2012
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
WP(C) 247/2012
1. By virtue of the impugned order dated 08.09.2011, the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi has dismissed the
petitioner's original application No. 2844/2011 on the ground of delay. The
reasoning adopted by the Tribunal is set out in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the
impugned order. The same reads as under:-
"6. At the very outset, we find that the OA, as filed, is not
maintainable under the provisions of Administrative Tribunals Act,
1985 being barred by limitation. It is evident from the averments
made in the OA read with representation dated 11.02.2011 that the
applicant has challenged the promotion of many persons who,
according to him, joined AHFQ Clerical Service later on him but
were given promotion as UDC before him, although, according to
him, their probation was lifted after his probation was lifted, i.e.,
between June, 1984 to June 1985 whereas the applicant s probation
was lifted as on 17.05.1984. However, this list is not supported by
any official documents. He is further aggrieved by being promoted
to the Assistant Grade w.e.f. 31.05.2004 after completion of nearly
15 years of service in the grade of UDC while he states that persons
whose probation was lifted later than him were given their
promotion to the Assistant Grade on completion of 8 years of
service. Lastly, he is aggrieved by the promotion of several persons
to the post of Section Officer w.e.f. 27.11.2009 but, according to
him, he was not considered for promotion to the said post. He has
attached a copy of the provisional seniority list of UDCs dated
19.08.1996 (Annexure P6) but has not attached any orders of
promotion of any juniors as Section Officers. His grievance against
the promotions of persons allegedly junior to him (having completed
their probation after him), arose several years ago, when they were
given promotion to the Assistant Grade and later to the grade of
Section Officer, and he should have agitated it at the appropriate
time with the respondents and thereafter, if necessary, an application
should have been made to the Tribunal, after exhausting the
available remedies with the respondents.
7. We also notice that when the provisional seniority list of
UDCs of AFHQ Clerical Service was circulated on 19.08.1996, it
had been clearly mentioned as under:
"A copy of the provisional seniority Roll of UDCs of
AFHQ Clerical Service, is forwarded herewith for
circulation to all concerned.
2. While status of the individuals have been shown
as it existed on 01 May 96, their organizations have
been indicated as on date.
3. It is requested that the Seniority Roll may be
given widest publicity amongst the individuals
working in various offices under your administrative
control and a confirmation in writing from each
individual that he/she has checked his/her particulars
shown in the Nominal Roll be obtained and forwarded
to this office ie. CAO/P-1 direct by 14 Sep 96.
Discrepancies/omissions, if any in the Nominal Roll
may also be forwarded to CAO/P-1 by 14 Sep 96."
From the above, it is clear that the objections, if any, against the
provisional seniority list were obtained from the concerned
individuals in the year 1996. Therefore, if the applicant had any
grievance against the said provisional seniority list, he should have
brought this to the notice of the respondents at the appropriate time
and, in case he had not got the relief from the respondents, he should
have approached this Tribunal within the stipulated period of
limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act,
1985. However, admittedly, the present OA has been filed only on
01.08.2011. His application is clearly barred by limitation in view
of the Section 21 and the legal position referred to hereinafter."
2. We find that one of the points urged by the petitioner was that his
probation had been completed prior to that of his colleagues, but he had been
promoted as Assistant in the year 2004 after 15 years, whereas his said
colleagues had been promoted much earlier, only on completion of 8 years of
service. It is further indicated in the impugned order itself, part of which has
been extracted above, that the petitioner is challenging the provisional seniority
list which was circulated in 1996.
3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner this was not made
known to the petitioner. However, it is difficult for us to believe this inasmuch
as the petitioner knew very well and, in fact, has made a grievance that his
colleagues were promoted earlier to him, although they had completed their
probation period later. So, it cannot be said that the petitioner was unaware of
either the promotions of his colleagues or of the said provisional seniority list.
We see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition is
dismissed.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
V.K. JAIN, J
JANUARY 13, 2012
SR
