Punjab-Haryana High Court
Malkiat Singh vs Union Of India And Others on 22 November, 2012
Author: Satish Kumar Mittal
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, Inderjit Singh
CWP No. 19904 of 2011 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 19904 of 2011
Date of Decision: November 22, 2012
Malkiat Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
Present: Mr. R.S. Bains, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Puneet Jindal, Advocate,
for the respondents.
..
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J.
In this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 05.10.2010 (Annexure P20) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal'), whereby O.A. No.1059/PB/2009 filed by him for issuing direction to the respondents to consider his claim for appointment as Sanitary/Safaiwala, as per letters dated 24.02.1996 (Annexure P2) and 15.07.2007 (Annexure P3), retrospectively, i.e. from the date his juniors were appointed and consequently pay him the entire arrears along with 18% compound interest thereon from the date the said amount became due till its actual payment, CWP No. 19904 of 2011 -2- has been dismissed.
After notice, we have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned order.
In this case, the petitioner was employed as D.C./Gangman on casual basis in the year 1983 in the office of Northern Railway, Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur. In the month of September 1985 he was discharged on medical grounds.
It is the case of the petitioner that his name was kept in the casual labourer register. It is further the case of the petitioner that vide letter dated 24.02.1996 (Annexure P2), the respondent-department started the process to fill up various posts of Sanitary/Safaiwala from casual labourers whose services were dispensed with and whose names were appearing in the live casual labour register maintained by the departments. This was reiterated by another letter dated 15.07.1997 (Annexure P3). It is further the case of the petitioner that some of the similarly situated employees from the live casual labour register, who were juniors to him, were re-employed, but the petitioner was not offered the re-employment. In the year 1998 the petitioner went to the Civil Court for the redressal of his grievance. In the year 2008 he had withdrawn that suit and thereafter, in the year 2009, he filed the aforesaid O.A. before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal has dismissed the O.A. primarily on three grounds, firstly, that the O.A. filed by the petitioner was suffering from delay which could not be condoned as the petitioner did not make out a case for condoning the said delay. Secondly, it was found as a fact that the petitioner did not prove that any junior to him was re-employed as Sanitary/Safaiwala. Since the petitioner did not furnish the detail of any CWP No. 19904 of 2011 -3- such person, no such direction, as prayed for, could have been issued. Thirdly, when the petitioner was discharged from service as he was declared medically unfit, he could not be re-employed.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering their submissions, we do not find any ground to interfere in the aforesaid order. Regarding limitation, it is an admitted position that even after withdrawal of the suit on 25.01.2008, which was being proceeded in the wrong Court, the petitioner filed the O.A. in December, 2009, i.e., much after one year and eleven months without any explanation, whereas as per the provisions of Section 21(1)(a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the O.A. should have been filed within one year of the cause of action. In this case, the alleged cause of action arose to the petitioner in the year 1997. As far as the merit of the case is concerned, in the written statement filed by the respondents, it was categorically stated that no person junior to the petitioner was re-employed. It has been stated that only the services of those persons who had served for 625-735 days were re- employed, whereas the petitioner had served only for 528 days. It has also been stated that the claim of the petitioner has elapsed as more than 25 years have passed when his services were dispensed with on medical grounds in the year 1985. These averments filed by the respondents have not been controverted by the petitioner. In these circumstances, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner has failed to establish that persons junior to him were re-employed. The third ground on which the claim of the petitioner has been dismissed has also not been controverted. Undisputedly, in the year 1985 the petitioner was discharged on medical grounds as he was declared medically unfit and such person could not have CWP No. 19904 of 2011 -4- been re-employed. Thus, in our opinion, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, no interference is required by this Court in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal.
Dismissed.
(SATISH KUMAR MITTAL)
JUDGE
November 22, 2012 ( INDERJIT SINGH )
vkg JUDGE