Bhawani Singh vs Union Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 18146 Raj

     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                      JODHPUR
              D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15916/2021

Bhawani Singh S/o Sh. Kuku Singh, Aged About 37 Years, R/o
D.S. Colony, Near Medical College, Jodhpur, Last Employed On
The Post Of Computer Operator, In The Office Of Commissioner
Of Income Tax-II, Jodhpur
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.     Union Of India, Through The Secretary to Govt. Of India,
       Minister Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block,
       New Delhi.
2.     Principal    Chief       Commissioner          Of    Income    Tax,   C.R.
       Building, Statute Circle, B.D. Road, Jaipur.
3.     Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Paota C Road, Jodhpur
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :    Mr. Harish Purohit
For Respondent(s)           :


           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

                                  Judgment


02/12/2021

By the Court : Per Hon'ble Jain, J.

By way of the present writ petition under Articles 226 and

227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the

impugned order dated 09.1.2019 passed by the learned Central

Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur, Bench Jodhpur (hereinafter

referred to as the 'CAT'), in miscellaneous application No.

290/00169/2018, whereby the miscellaneous application

(Execution) filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

(2 of 4) [CW-15916/2021]

The facts for adjudication of the writ petition are stated as

below:-

The petitioner before termination was employed on the post

of Computer Operator in the office of Commissioner, Income Tax -

II, Jodhpur in the year 2012. The petitioner and the four others

approached the CAT challenging their termination and seeking

direction for not replacing them by any other source except by

way of regular appointment.

The learned Tribunal by common order dated 29.10.2012

decided the original application of the applicants alongwith several

other original applications filed by similarly situated persons and

the applicants and other similarly situated persons were taken

back on duty and continued in service by the respondents.

It is stated by the petitioner that the petitioner after lapse of

one year on 22.10.2013 filed a representation and thereafter on

14.9.2017, the petitioner preferred a contempt petition before the

CAT under Section 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act,

1985 but the same was dismissed vide order dated 14.9.2017.

On 12.12.2017, the petitioner filed a review application but

the same also came to be dismissed by circulation.

Again on the same set of cause of action, the petitioner filed

a miscellaneous application numbering 290/169/2018,

290/170/2018 for execution of the order dated 29.10.2012 in the

year 2018 along with the application for condonation of delay and

it was prayed before the Tribunal to direct the respondents to re-

engage the petitioner as a casual employee.

It is important to submit that the said action was taken by

the petitioner in the year 2018.

(3 of 4) [CW-15916/2021]

On these facts the petitioner claimed for re-appointment in

the light of order dated 29.10.2012 passed by the Tribunal.

The learned Tribunal vide order dated 09.1.2019 after

hearing the parties dismissed the application on the ground that in

compliance of order dated 29.10.2012, the petitioner-applicant

had never turned up to join duties. He was never denied to

resume his duties by the respondents.

The claim of the petitioner is that when similarly situated

persons in compliance of the order dated 29.10.2012 were

permitted to join the office, denial of indulgence to him in joining

duties is discriminatory, illegal and unwarranted specifically when

the order passed by the learned Tribunal was in his favor and the

SLP filed by Union of India in the case of Mahendra Singh & Ors

has been dismissed on 15.02.2016.

After considering the arguments advanced by petitioner's

counsel, perusal of memo of writ petition and the impugned order,

we are of the view that the petitioner has made an attempt to re-

agitate the issue which was concluded by the learned Tribunal with

dismissal of his contempt petition in the year 2017. Not only that,

the Tribunal has specifically stated that the conduct of the

petitioner does not entitle him for grant of prayer requested by

him on account of the fact that he never showed any willingness

to resume duties in the office of respondent which is reflected

from the fact that inspite of passing of favorable order by learned

CAT on 29.10.2012, he has never appeared at the office nor did

he file any execution application or raise any grievance. Merely on

22.10.2013 a letter was filed which was neither pursued nor any

attempt to join was made. It was only in the year 2018 that the

(4 of 4) [CW-15916/2021]

petitioner has again re-agitated the issue contrary to provisions of

Section 21 and 27 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 which

has set out limitation, qua execution and raising grievance against

any cause, order etc. The act of petitioner in approaching the

Tribunal after six years is time barred as per the provisions of

Section 21 and 27 of Act of 1985.

On an overall consideration of the reasoning given by the

learned Tribunal and the legal provisions and the facts of the case,

we are of the opinion that the order dated 09.01.2019 does not

call for any interference and is upheld. The application filed by the

petitioner before the Tribunal was rightly dismissed and not

entertained.

The present writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly

dismissed.

                                   (SAMEER JAIN),J                                        (SANDEEP MEHTA),J



                                    Amit/ 37









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)