Delhi High Court
Sh. Sat Pal vs Union Of India And Ors. on 6 February, 2019
$~24
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : 06.02.2019
+ W.P.(C) 1236/2019
SH. SAT PAL ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. A.K. Bhakt, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Mr. Nikhil
Bhardwaj and Mr. Shaswat Sharma,
Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA
VIPIN SANGHI, J (ORAL)
CM APPL. 5601/2019
Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 1236/2019
1. The petitioner assails the order dated 20.08.2018 passed by the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench (CAT) in OA No.
310/2016. The Tribunal had rejected the said OA filed by the petitioner
since the same was barred by limitation.
2. The claim of the petitioner was that he was appointed on the post of
Cleaner w.e.f. 18.12.1964. Though, he was appointed as Cleaner, he was
deputed to perform the duties and the responsibilities of Mistry (Electrician).
However, his pay was fixed in the post of Cleaner. His claim was that he
was entitled to the next upgradation in the promotional post of Mistry
(Electrician) after completion of 7 years continuous service in the pay scale
of Rs.260-350, and thereafter he was entitled to next upgradation on the post
of Senior Electrician in the pay scale of Rs.380-640. However, the
respondents did not consider him for grant of promotion or upgradation till
1981. In 1981, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Mistry Grade-II
on the recommendations of the Selection Committee. He was placed in the
pay scale of Rs.260-350. He claimed that he was not granted benefits to
which he was entitled, such as, benefits under Flexible Complementing
Scheme. He sought voluntary retirement from service on 09.09.1992 while
discharging responsibilities as Mistry Grade-II.
3. The first OA was disposed of with direction to the respondents to pass
a speaking order on his representation. The same came to be issued on
07.12.2015. Thereafter, he preferred the present OA. The Tribunal found
the claim of the petitioner to be stale. The Tribunal has also observed that
the applicant having accepted the appointment in the substantive post of
Cleaner in the pay scale attached thereto on 24.12.1964 and enjoyed three
promotions in the hierarchy of Cleaner, and having voluntarily retired on
09.09.1992, cannot now claim appointment as Mistry (Electrician) in the
year 1964, with consequential benefits in that hierarchy.
4. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
petitioner was appointed as Mistry Grade-II on work-charge basis on
10.06.1981. He places reliance on the office memorandum dated 09.06.2011
issued by the Director General, CPWD to submit that those who completed
eight years of service in the category of work charged staff in CPWD were
entitled to grant of selection grade in term of the judgment of this court
taken note of in the said OM.
5. The petitioner having slept over his rights and approached the
Tribunal after over 20 years, cannot except the respondent to be in a position
to effectively answer his claim. The respondent is put to a serious prejudice,
since over two decades have elapsed between the time when the petitioner's
cause of action arose, and the claim was made. During this period, the
records relevant to the subject, as well as the officers who dealt with the
petitioner's case and would have been in position to answer his claim, would
obviously, not be available. It would not be fair to examine the petitioner'
claim only on the basis of one sided documents that the petitioner chooses to
produce. The conduct of the petitioner in not agitating his claim
contemporaneously raises a strong presumption against him that he had been
treated legally and fairly, else he would have raised his grievance then. The
claim now raised cannot be granted without examination of facts, such as,
the nature of duties actually allocated to him from time to time; the number
of sanctioned posts available in the grade of Mistry (Electrician); his relative
seniority and merit etc. With passage of time, these aspects are incapable of
examination and verification. Reliance placed on OM dated 09.06.2011,
even otherwise, is of no avail since the same pertains to CPWD, whereas,
the petitioner was serving with CSIR. There is nothing to show that the said
OM was applicable to the employees of CSIR.
6. We therefore, find no merit in this petition. Dismissed.
VIPIN SANGHI, J
A. K. CHAWLA, J
FEBRUARY 06, 2019
rc
