Delhi High Court
K.S. Bist vs Government Of National Capital ... on 6 May, 2016
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
$~13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 7433/2015
Date of decision: 6th May, 2016
K.S. BIST ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anil Hooda with
Mr. Ankit Gupta, Advs.
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF
DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Satyakam, ASC for GNCTD.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL)
1. Mr. K.S.Bist by this writ petition impugns the order dated 16 th
April, 2015 passed by the Principal Bench of the Central
Administrative Tribunal in OA No.425/2014 on the ground that the
reliefs/benefits claimed are barred by limitation.
2. The petitioner is a retired Electronic Data Processor who was
working in the Department of Trade and Taxes, Government of NCT of
Delhi. He had retired on 31.01.2011. After about two years of
retirement, the petitioner wrote two representations dated 4.12.2012
and 16.1.2013 seeking revision and re-fixation of his pay as
Programme Officer in the scale of Rs.2000-3200/- for the period from
1.1.1986 to 11.9.1989. This claim was based upon the
recommendation of Dr. Sheshagiri Committee and predicated on
certain judgments including decision of this Court in WP(C)
No.2578/2007 titled as Vinod Kumar & Ors. Vs. Government of NCT
of Delhi & Ors. decided on 19.7.2010 that the enhanced or revised pay
scale would be applicable with effect from 1.1.1986 and not from
11.9.1989.
3. The petitioner subsequently filed the aforesaid OA on 29th
January, 2014 primarily claiming that he should be paid arrears from
1.1.1986 to 11.9.1989 on the basis that he was entitled to pay scale of
Rs.2000-3200/- during this period and was wrongly paid salary in the
scale of Rs.1640-2900/-.
4. We have examined the order of the Tribunal which is detailed
and exhaustive. It clearly holds that the claim was barred by limitation
as specified and mandated by Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal
Act, 1985.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that similarly
placed persons have been granted the said relief and our attention is
drawn to order dated 19.7.2010 passed in Vinod Kumar's case (supra).
6. By this order, we do note that the pay scale was granted to the
petitioners therein from 1.1.1986 but the order does not discuss the
question of limitation or delay and latches. It also appears that the
petitioners had not approached the Tribunal in the said case. However,
in WP(C) No.5976/2001 decided on 30th November, 2011 titled
Government of NCT of Delhi vs. M.M. Chandra and Ors. which had
arisen from the order of the Tribunal in OA No.1887/2000, similar
claim was restricted to 11.9.1989 and was not paid with effect from
1.1.1986. The learned counsel for the petitioners tried to distinguish
this case stating the Government employees therein were appointed
after 11.9.1989. We do not find there is any such observation or
finding of the High Court on the said aspect in the judgment dated 30 th
November, 2011.
7. These decisions however do not relate to and decide the
question of limitation. The petitioner will have to get over this hurdle
even if we assume that he should be treated at par and was entitled to
scale of Rs.2000-3200/- from 1.1.1986 to 11.9.1989. Law of limitation
does not extinguish or destroy the legal right but only prohibits the
person from enforcing the right in the Court or Tribunal. Where a
claim is barred by limitation, relief is denied for the said reason and not
on merits. Recourse to legal remedy is barred.
8. In view of the aforesaid position, we do not find any merit in
the present writ petition and the same is dismissed.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J.
MAY 06, 2016/ak
