Shri Shri Chand vs Delhi Transport Corporation
2022 Latest Caselaw 2504 Del

                    $~Special DB

                    *            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                                        Reserved on:07th October, 2022
                                                                    Date of Decision :11th October, 2022
                    +            W.P.(C) 8755/2018

                                 SHRI SHRI CHAND                                      ..... Petitioner
                                              Through:          Ms. Kittu Bajaj, Advocate.

                                                   versus

                                 DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION         ..... Respondent
                                               Through: None.
                                 CORAM:
                                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
                                 HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI

                                                       JUDGMENT

REKHA PALLI, J

REVIEW PET. 20/2020

1. The present review petition has been filed seeking review of the order dated 21.08.2018 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 8755/2018. Vide order dated 21.08.2018, this Court had dismissed the writ petition by rejecting the petitioner's challenge to the judgment dated 18.12.2017 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter, the learned Tribunal), whereby his Original Application (OA) was dismissed.

2. Before dealing with the review petition on merits, it may be apposite to note the brief factual matrix-

Signature Not Verified

By:KESHAV Signing Date:11.10.2022 16:54:35

3. The petitioner, who had joined the services in the respondent organization as a conductor in the year 1983 had, in the year 2012, approached the learned Tribunal seeking a direction to the respondents to grant him the benefits of the first ACP w.e.f. 2002 instead of 2005, and that of the second ACP from 2007, instead of the benefits of the MACP w.e.f. 01.09.2008. Before the tribunal, the petitioner had also prayed that the adverse entry in his ACR for the year 2001, which was the basis for delaying the benefits of the first and second ACP to him, be set aside. The OA was opposed by the respondent by pointing out that the petitioner had been duly communicated the adverse remarks of "Average but irregular" in his ACR, on 27.02.2002 itself but he did not challenge the same till 2012 and, therefore, the OA was liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches.

4. Being aggrieved by the rejection of his OA by the learned Tribunal on account of his claim being a dead and stale claim, the petitioner approached this Court by way of the present petition, which was dismissed vide order dated 21.08.2018, of which review is now being sought. It may be noted that though the review petition is barred by limitation, after having been filed with an application seeking condonation of 240 days' delay in filing the same, as also by an application seeking condonation of 180 days' delay in re-filing the same, we have proceeded to hear the learned counsel for the petitioner on merits and, therefore, do not deem it necessary to deal with these applications.

5. In support of this review petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court, as also the learned Tribunal, committed an error apparent on the face of record in coming to the conclusion that there, was a delay on the part of the petitioner in assailing the ACR of the year 2001. She Signature Not Verified

By:KESHAV Signing Date:11.10.2022 16:54:35 submits that this Court has failed to appreciate that the petitioner's ACR for the year 2001 could not be deemed as adverse and, therefore, there was no requirement for the petitioner to challenge the same. On the other hand, based on his average grading in the ACR for the year 2001, he was entitled to be granted the benefits of first ACP in 2005, and that of the second ACP in 2007, which were wrongly denied to him, compelling him to approach the Tribunal at that stage. She, thus, contends that this Court had, without appreciating the fact that the petitioner's challenge was not to his ACR of the year 2001 but was to the non-grant of timely benefits under the ACP scheme, had rejected the petitioner's challenge to the dismissal of his OA on the ground of delay and latches.

6. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record, we find that the petitioner is only attempting to re-argue the matter by taking pleas which are contrary to his own prayer for setting aside his ACR of the year 2001 made before this Court. In this regard, it would be relevant to note the prayer (b) in the writ petition which reads as under:-

"(b). Quash the ACR dated 27.07.2002 being illegal, arbitrary and totally unwarranted."

7. In the light of the aforesaid and the petitioner's own consistent case before this Court, as also before the learned Tribunal that the adverse entry in his ACR for the year 2001 was liable to be quashed, the petitioner cannot, now, be permitted to urge that he had not sought quashing of the said ACR. Even otherwise, the pleas now sought to be urged by the petitioner would not fall within the ambit of review as the petitioner has failed to point out any error Signature Not Verified

By:KESHAV Signing Date:11.10.2022 16:54:35 apparent on the face of record in our judgment dated 21.08.2018. It is trite law that under the garb of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to readdress the Court on merits.

8. The review petition, being meritless, is dismissed along with all pending applications.

(REKHA PALLI) JUDGE

(SIDDHARTH MRIDUL) JUDGE

OCTOBER 11, 2022 sr

Signature Not Verified

By:KESHAV Signing Date:11.10.2022 16:54:35