Delhi High Court
Colonel Manjunath B.T. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 30 November, 2017
$~71.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 10669/2017
COLONEL MANJUNATH B.T. ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Jyoti Singh, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Dinesh Yadav, Ms. Tinu Bajwa and
Mr. Himanshu Gautam, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Waize Ali Noor, Mr. Kirtiman Singh
and Mr. Prateek Dhanda, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
ORDER
% 30.11.2017
1. The petitioner, who is posted as a Colonel in the Director General
Quality Assurance, has impugned the upgradation lists of September, 2006,
November, 2008, January, 2010 and December, 2014 on the ground that the
said lists have incorrectly fixed his seniority. The petitioner also seeks
quashing of the order dated 19.01.2017 passed by the Ministry of Defence,
Government of India, rejecting his statutory complaint dated 28.01.2016
against fixing his seniority and non-implementation of the redressal granted
to him by the respondents vide order dated 06.06.2003, in respect of his
assessment in the Confidential Report 07/96 to 05/97.
2. Learned counsel for the respondents, who appears on advance notice,
has opposed the maintainability of the present petition on three counts.
Firstly, on the ground that this Court is not vested with the jurisdiction to
entertain the present petition as the remedy of the petitioner lies under the
Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007; secondly, that the present petition is
barred by limitation as the cause of action had arisen in the year 2006 but no
legal recourse was sought by the petitioner for a span of 11 years; thirdly,
that the petitioner has failed to implead the Officers, who would be directly
affected, in the event the present petition is entertained on merits.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, confines his opposition
to the present petition mainly on the aspect of its maintainability on the
ground that it is hopelessly barred by delay and latches and he places
reliance on two decisions of the Supreme Court in cases of P.S.
Sadasivaswamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported as (1975) 1 SCC 152 and
Union of India & Ors. vs. M.K. Sarkar, reported as (2010) 2 SCC 59.
4. At this stage, Ms. Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
petitioner states, on instructions, that instead of pressing the present petition
on merits, she may be permitted to withdraw the same, while reserving the
right of her client to approach the Ministry of Defence, Government of India
for seeking a clarification in respect of the observations made in para 3 of
the order dated 19.01.2017, wherein it has been stated that the petitioner has
correctly been granted the Batch Year of Seniority of 1989, as per the
existing policies. She contends that the petitioner had already been granted
seniority of Batch Year 1988, which has now been changed to his detriment,
vide the aforesaid order.
5. Leave, as prayed for, is granted. The present petition is disposed of.
HIMA KOHLI, J
REKHA PALLI, J
NOVEMBER 30, 2017/na/rkb
