Mrs. Sushila Kaul vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors
2013 Latest Caselaw 913 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                  Date of decision: February 22, 2013

+      W.P.(C) 1156/2013

       MRS. SUSHILA KAUL                       ..... Petitioner
                     Represented by:Mr.Ram Kanwar, Advocate

                          versus

       GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS                    ..... Respondents
                     Represented by:Nemo

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL

VEENA BIRBAL, J.

1. By way of this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has impugned the order dated July 20, 2011 whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal') has dismissed the OA 2544/2011 of the petitioner on the ground that claims made therein are stale.

2. Petitioner was appointed as Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) w.e.f. October 12, 1970 in the language stream and was posted in Government Girls Senior Secondary School, Narela, Delhi in the pay scale of ` 220-

550. She served for 13 years in the same capacity uptil September 29, 1983 in various secondary schools. On September 30, 1983, she was promoted as PGT (language). From September 30, 1984 to September 30, 1997, petitioner served as PGT (Selection grade). Thereafter, she was promoted as Vice Principal and remained posted in the Government Senior Secondary

School, Ghitorni from September 30, 1997 to August 16, 2002. Thereafter, she was promoted as Principal and worked as such for three years. On September 30, 2005, petitioner took voluntary retirement. Vide order dated August 01, 2006 issued by Addl. Director of Education (Admn.) with prior approval of Competent Authority, petitioner was awarded selection scale in the pay scale of `2200-4400 (pre-revised) w.e.f. November 22, 1992. The grievance of petitioner is that respondents have delayed her promotion to PGT (Selection Grade) and have not fixed her revised pay scale and have not paid her arrears. She also made representation to Government but of no use. Left with no option, she filed OA seeking direction against the respondent for re-fixing pay and allowances of the petitioner at various stages i.e., promotion to the post of PGT Grade Pay, PGT (Selection Grade), Vice Principal and Principal and to grant her arrears of pay and allowances as a consequence of refixation of pay and also to revise her retiral benefits consequent upon revision of pay.

3. The Tribunal dismissed the O.A. in limini by observing that claims made by the petitioner were stale being related to the years 1983, 1997, 2003 and 2005.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the respondents are acting malafidely by withholding the refixation of pay and allowances and consequently revision of pension despite various representations made by the petitioner. Learned counsel has submitted that the Tribunal ought to have decided the OA on merits instead of dismissing it on the ground of delay.

5. In the O.A., petitioner has claimed refixation of pay and allowances at various stages such as promotion to PGT grade, PGT (selection grade),

Vice Principal and Principal. The petitioner has retired on September 30, 2005. The order by which selection scale has been awarded to her is dated August 1, 2006. Even thereafter she has taken five years in approaching the Tribunal.

6. The relevant observations of the Tribunal in this regard are as under:-

"The general reliefs and claims made by the Applicant in the OA related to the year 1983, 1997, 2003 and 2005. This claim is definitely stale. She has not demonstrated what would be her revised scale of pay and from what date. Besides, what should be her retiral benefits, in case of grant of revised pay scale. The cause of action to revise the pay scale at the PGT arose no sooner she joined on the said post of PGT in 1983 and the OA being filed on 14th June, 2011, it would mean that more than 27 years had passed. In the meantime even for the post of Vice Principal which she joined in September, 1997, the case has been filed after 13 years of delay when the cause of action arose. The Applicant became Principal on 02.08.2003 and the cause of action in this case even for revision of pay arose more than 7 years back. Even when she retired in the year 2005 she did not agitate and has come now after more than five years. These clearly and definitely demonstrate delayed cause of action. These claims, in our opinion are stale. Definitely the claims for revision of pay from the year 1987 to 2005 coming now in June, 2011 before this Tribunal will be hit by the law of limitation as enshrined in Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act."

7. The Tribunal has also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in D.C.S.Negi vs. Union of India & Ors decided on 07.03.2011 in SLP © No.7956/2011 (CC No.3709/2011) in dismissing the OA on the ground of delay.

8. No illegality is seen in the impugned order of the Tribunal which calls

for interference of this court.

Writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

VEENA BIRBAL, J

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J FEBRUARY 22, 2013 ssb