Surendra Kumar Verma And Ors vs Gnct Of Delhi And Ors
2012 Latest Caselaw 3096 Del

         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.

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

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