Prashanta Kumar Sen vs Uoi And Ors
2012 Latest Caselaw 1850 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                          Judgment delivered on 19.03.2012

+      W.P.(C) 1527/2012

PRASHANTA KUMAR SEN                                                     ..... Petitioner


                     versus

UOI AND ORS                                                             ..... Respondents


Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner   : Mr A. Chakraborty
For the Respondent   : Mr Baldev Malik and Mr Arjun Malik for R-1 & 4

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN

                              JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED (ORAL)

1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 16.12.2011 passed in

OA No. 4442/2011, whereby the petitioner's said original application was

dismissed on the ground of limitation.

2. The petitioner had been appointed to the Bihar Forest Service in 1967. He

was promoted to the Indian Forest Service by a notification dated 25.08.1975.

Thereafter, the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000 came into force as a result of which

the State of Bihar was re-organized into two States being the State of Bihar and the

State of Jharkhand. The said reorganization came into effect on 15.11.2000. At

that point of time, the petitioner was allocated to the newly formed Jharkhand

cadre. He retired on 31.08.2001. He made a representation for his allocation to the

State of Bihar. However, that representation was rejected on 19.05.2001.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that his case had been

recommended on 30.10.2000 as per the note put up by the Under Secretary, Indian

Forest Service. The relevant portion of the said note reads as under:-

"4. In the case of Bihar/Jharkhand, Shri A.K. Sinha, a promote officer of 1969 batch has opted for Jharkhand but as per the roster he is getting Bihar P.K. Sen requesting for his allocation to residual Bihar State. Since both of them fall in the same band in the roster, Shri A.K. Sinha's cadre may be exchanged with that of Shri P.K. Sen. Necessary changes have been made in the roster as well as in the lists of cadre allocation.

Approval of MEF is solicited to the changes proposed before the revised lists are sent to the DoPT."

Thereafter, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner the said

recommendation was approved by the Minister of Environment and Forests. In this

context, he drew our attention to the note of the Joint Secretary dated 31.10.2000.

The relevant portion of which reads as under:-

"............Besides, Shri A.K. Sinha a promote IFS officer of 1969 batch in the Bihar Cadre has opted for Jharkhand whereas Shri P.K. Sen, another promote officer of same batch, has opted for Bihar. Since both

these officers fall in the same roster band, their names have been exchanged with each other. Revised Lists are placed below. MEF has approved the above changes.

Changes made are brought to the notice of the Chairman, Advisory Committee. Necessary notification will be issued by this Ministry after it is seen and agreed by him."

4. It was the case of the learned counsel for the petitioner that once the

recommendation had been made and the same had been approved, his

representation for allocation to the State of Bihar could not have been rejected on

19.05.2001.

5. Without going into the merits of whether the representation was rightly or

wrongly rejected, it is a fact that the cause of action arose on 19.05.2001 when his

representation for allocation to the State of Bihar came to be rejected. It is about 10

years later that he filed the said original application on the grievance that he had

been illegally allocated to the State of Jharkhand and that had he been allocated to

the State of Bihar, he would have superannuated from the post of Principal Chief

Conservator of Forest Bihar, which would have impacted his present retiral

benefits. The Tribunal examined the contentions of the petitioner with regard to

the delay in approaching the Tribunal. The only reason sought to have been given

by the petitioner was that he was under a bona fide belief that the respondents had

followed the criteria set down and that their action of allocating him to Jharkhand

was fair and just. It is for this reason that he had not challenged the notification

which had allocated him to Jharkhand. It was also contended on behalf of the

petitioner that only recently, after he was provided information under the Right to

Information Act, 2005, he became aware that some illegality had been committed

in the cadre allocation in 2009 and it is thereafter that he represented to the

respondent No. 1 with regard to his allocation. The petitioner submitted that the

said representation has not been decided.

6. The Tribunal took note of the fact that the petitioner had not approached the

Tribunal after the rejection of his representation on 19.05.2011. It also rejected the

plea of the petitioner that limitation would start to run from the date on which the

representation which he made in 2009 would be decided. The Tribunal held that

the subsequent representation would be of no consequence inasmuch as his original

representation was rejected on 19.05.2001. Consequently, the cause of action,

according to the Tribunal, accrued to the petitioner when he was allocated to

Jharkhand State or at the most when his application seeking allocation to Bihar was

rejected on 19.05.2001. It was, therefore, held that the petitioner had approached

the Tribunal much beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 21 of

the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

7. Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to interfere with the

order passed by the Tribunal inasmuch as the petitioner had come to know on

19.05.2001 that his request of allocation to Bihar had been rejected. Yet, he did not

take any action till the filing of his so-called representation in the year 2009. In

any event, the subsequent representation would not entitle the petitioner to extend

the point of time. The clock started ticking for the purposes of limitation. That

point was on 19.05.2001, in the latest. He ought to have approached the Tribunal

within the period prescribed under Section 21 of the said Act beginning from

19.05.2001. He did not do so. He also did not offer any tangible explanation for

the delay in coming to the Tribunal.

In these circumstances, we do not see any reason to interfere with the

impugned order.

The writ petition is dismissed.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

V.K.JAIN, J MARCH 19, 2012 BG