Delhi High Court
Ashok Kumar Verma vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Anr on 31 July, 2015
$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 7186/2015, CM 13207/2015
% Judgment dated 31st July, 2015
ASHOK KUMAR VERMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjiv Joshi, Advocate
versus
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED & ANR .... Respondents
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G. S. SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)
CM 13207/2015 (for exemption)
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of
WP(C) 7186/2015
1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 28.04.2014
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to
as 'the Tribunal').
2. The case of the petitioner as set up before the Tribunal was
that had he been relieved within the stipulated period of 40 days as
mentioned in the order dated 24.06.2002 promoting him and others
from the post of JTO to the post of TES Grade B, he would have
WP© 7186/2015 Page 1 of 4
become entitled for the STS Scale with effect from August, 2011.
Petitioner accordingly sought a direction to the respondents to count
his seniority in the post of TES Grade B with effect from August,
2011 and to grant all consequential benefits including pensionary
benefits.
3. In this case, petitioner was working as JTO, he was promoted
to the post of TES Grade B vide the respondents order dated
24.06.2002. In the aforesaid order, there was a stipulation that the
officers who are promoted are required to join their promotional
assignment within a period of 40 days and the CMD/CGM concerned
should ensure that the station of posting orders in respect of officers
are issued in time to join their promotional assignment and the officers
shall be relieved within the time period of 40 days from the date of
issuing of the promotion order. It is also the case of the petitioner that
in spite of aforesaid stipulation, he was not relieved on time on the
ground that no substitute was posted in his place. Petitioner has also
stated that he made a representation on 24.07.2002 requesting
respondent no.2 for his immediate relieving for joining in the
promotional post but he was relieved only after a period of 87 days
and he could assume charge of TES Grade B in the office of the
GMTD, GB Nagar, Noida only on 31.10.2002. Further, the delay in
relieving him had a great impact in his service which he did not
realize in beginning. However, when time bound promotion scheme
was introduced, his first promotion was delayed whereas the persons
junior to him have got their respective seniority, promotion and
financial benefits well within time. Petitioner, accordingly, made a
representation on 16.07.2009 for counting his promotion to the post of
WP© 7186/2015 Page 2 of 4
TES Grade B from the aforesaid date his promotion, as in the case of
his juniors. The respondents did not accept his request. It is also the
case of the petitioner that when the second time bound promotion was
due in August, 2011, he made another representation. The same was
also rejected. Petitioner retired from service on 31.08.2011 without
getting the benefit of the first and second time bound promotions from
the due date. Accordingly, petitioner approached the Tribunal
seeking a direction to the respondents to count his seniority in TES
Grade B with effect from August, 2002 and the consequential benefits
of STS scale with effect from August, 2011 and the revision of the
pension which was dismissed.
4. Reply was filed by the respondents before the Tribunal
refuting the submissions made by the petitioner. The stand of the
respondents was that the reason for delay was his own making.
Respondents stated that on receipt of his promotion order dated
24.06.2002, petitioner made a representation on 02.07.2002 to the
Chief General Manager Telecom (UP) West Circle, Dehradun to
change his posting to General Manager Telecom District Ghaziabad.
Accordingly, the Assistant General Manager (A) in the office of the
General Manager Telecom District Ghaziabad where he was working
forwarded the said representation to the Assistant General Manager,
Dehradun vide his letter dated 04.07.2002. However, his request was
not acceded to.
5. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order passed
by the Tribunal is bad in law and the same is liable to the set aside.
It is submitted that the order is arbitrary and the Tribunal has failed to
WP© 7186/2015 Page 3 of 4
appreciate that on account of delay, right of the petitioner to
promotion was affected.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and we find
no ground to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. The
Tribunal has rejected the OA firstly on the ground that petitioner
himself was responsible for the delay in joining. The Tribunal has
reached the finding that the delay in relieving was mainly due to
pendency of his representation to change his place of posting. The
Tribunal has also rejected the OA on the ground of limitation. There
is no explanation as to why the petitioner approached the Tribunal in
the year 2014 when the order relates back to 24.06.2002. There is no
explanation for delay even before this court. Section 21of the
Administrative Tribunal Act has fixed the period of limitation of one
year. We find that no objection was raised by the petitioner for the
alleged delay and merely filing of representation and that too beyond
the period of limitation cannot extend limitation. On the merits of the
matter, the Tribunal has held that the delay was caused as the
petitioner had made a representation for change of posting.
7. Resultantly, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned
order passed by the Tribunal. Writ petition stands dismissed.
G. S. SISTANI, J.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
JULY 31, 2015
ssb
