Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Dalip Singh Sisodia vs National Buildings Construction ... on 15 November, 2010
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH OA 3261/ 2010 MA 2741/2010 New Delhi this the 15th day of November, 2010. Honble Mr. Justice V.K.Bali, Chairman Honble Mr. L.K.Joshi, Vice Chairman (A) Dalip Singh Sisodia, Ex. Asstt. Manager (Per. & Admn.) National Buildings Construction Corporation Ltd., ( A Govt. of India Enterprise), Lodi Road, New Delhi-03 S/o Shri Bhroora Singh, R/o H. No. A/66, Shradha Puri, Sector-1, Meerut-250001, UP. Applicant (Applicant present in person ) VERSUS 1. National Buildings Construction Corporation Ltd, ( A Govt. of India Enterprises) Through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, NBCC Bhawan, Lodi Road, New Delhi-3 2. The General Manager, ( Personnel & Industrial Relations), National Buildings Construction Corporation Ltd., ( A Govt. of India Enterprises), NBCC Bhawan, Lodi Road, New Delhi-110003 3. Union of India through The Secretary of Ministry of Urban Development, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi. Respondents O R D E R Mr. L.K.Joshi, Vice Chairman (A) :
The Applicant is seeking the financial benefit of working in the post of Administrative Officer in the scale of pay of Rs.8000-13,500 in the first Respondent-National Buildings Construction Corporation Ltd from 17.10.1994 to 4.05.1999, when he retired from the service of the Respondent on seeking voluntary retirement. He is seeking the following reliefs:
1) To direct the respondents to treat the applicant eligible for the financial benefits/relief for the period accrued to him with effect from the date i.e. 17.10.1994 from which his notional pay has been fixed by the Respondents No.1 & 2 (Personnel Division) as per office order No. 676/2003 dated 28.10.003 (Copy annexed) as the applicant joined on his promoted post of Administrative officer/Asstt. Manager (P&A) on 27.10.1994 (forenoon) in the then pay scale of Rs.8,000/- to 13,500/- and performed/executed the duties of his promoted post un interrupted upto the date of his taking VRS i.e. 04.05.1990 (Afternoon).
2) Accordingly to direct the respondents to release the consequential financial benefits/relief including the benefits, which were allowed to the applicant for VRS Scheme along with 6 % interest on the total amount of arrear as ruled by the Honble Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in the Judgment dated 13.02.10 in the case of Gaurishankar Sharma, Budh Prakash Tyagi, Raj Kumar Uppal, Prabhu Dayal, Jagdish Prasad Sharmaand and Cintamani Mathur Versus Government of Delhi.
3) To pass such other and further orders, which this Honble Tribunal deem fit and proper.
2. The Applicant, an employee of the first Respondent-NBCC was promoted to the post of Assistant Manager (P&A), also designated as Administrative Officer, by order dated 17.10.1994. The Applicant belongs to the scheduled caste category. He joined the post to which he was promoted on 27.10.1994. Meanwhile, a Civil Writ Petition number 4481 of 1994 was filed challenging the promotions to the post of Administrative Officer. The Honourable Delhi High Court issued notice on 27.10.1994 and also directed that status quo be maintained. The Applicant was the ninth respondent in this Writ Petition. The Applicant worked in the capacity of Administrative Officer as he had joined on 27.10.1994. The probation of the Applicant was extended by order dated 30.01.1997 for a period of three months and thereafter by order dated 27.10.1998 for a period of six months up to 26.04.1999. However, his pay in the grade of Administrative Officer was not fixed. The Applicant wrote letters to the President of the NBCC Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Board on 13.01.1995 and 16.09.1997, copies of which were endorsed to the first Respondent also, pleading that the association should take up his case for fixation of his pay in the grade of Administrative Officer. The Applicant sought voluntary retirement from the service of the first Respondent, which was accepted and he was released on 4.05.1999. On the same date the Applicant was informed by the first Respondent that his request for fixation of his pay to the post of Administrative Officer had not been acceded to by the first Respondent. He was further informed that his request would be considered only after the decision of the High Court in the Writ Petition number 4481 of 1994. The writ petition was decided on 26.07.1999 by which the proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee dated 12.10.1994 was quashed and set aside. The promotion of the respondents number 5 to 10 to the post of Administrative Officer by order dated 17.10.1995 was quashed and set aside. Directions were given to the NBCC to hold a meeting of review Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion to the post of Administrative Officer in accordance with law. By an order number 4 to 7 of 2003 dated 26.06.2003, the Applicant's pay was fixed on notional basis in the grade of Assistant Manager (formerly Administrative Officer) with effect from 17.10.1994. An office order number 676 of 2003 dated 28.10.2003 was issued fixing his pay notionally from 17.10.1994 up to 1.10.1998. The Applicant made representation to the Respondent-NBCC to give financial benefit of promotion to the post of Administrative Officer and release his dues in that grade from 17.10.1994 to 4.05.1999, the date of his retirement. He discussed the matter also with the concerned authority of the Respondent-NBCC. The Respondent rejected the plea of the Applicant by an order dated 19.02.2004 thus:
In pursuance to the directions given by the High Court in the above said orders dated July 1999 the Corporation held review DPC and the eligible employees including you have been promoted notionally w.e.f. 17.10.94 vide Order dated 26.6.2003.
In view of above, your request for allowing financial effect of your promotion to the post of ADO w.e.f.27.10.1994 cannot be acceded to. The Applicant made an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 on 19.10.2007, which was replied to by the Respondent by letter dated 16.11.2007. Basically, he sought information regarding their reasons for not paying his dues for the post of Administrative Officer from 17.10.1994 till his retirement on 4.05.1999. The Applicant again filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 on 4.12.2009. The reply was given on 3.05.2010. He was again informed that in view of the judgement of the Honourable Delhi High Court he was not eligible for any monetary benefit of promotion.
3. We have not gone into the merits of the case because the OA is clearly barred by limitation. By order dated 19.02.2004 the prayer of the applicant for grant of actual financial benefit for the period for which he worked as Administrative Officer was rejected. The Applicant, who appeared in person, could not answer the query as to why he did not approach this Tribunal within the period of limitation from 19.02.2004, when the final order had been passed rejecting his representation. The Applicant insisted that he had been making further representations and seeking information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 after the passing of the above order on 19.02.2004. The reply to all his query was finally given by the Respondent on 3.05.2010. Therefore, his cause of action arose on 03.05.2010.
4. We are unable to agree to the argument of the Applicant. The limitation before the Tribunal is governed by Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which is extracted below:
21. Limitation - (1) A Tribunal shall not admit an application,-
(a) in a case where a final order such as is mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 20 has been made in connection with the grievance unless the application is made, within one year from the date on which such final order has been made;
(b) in a case where an appeal or representation such as is mentioned in clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 20 has been made and a period of six months had expired thereafter without such final order having been made, within one year from the date of expiry of the said period of six months.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where -
(a) the grievance in respect of which an application is made had arisen by reason of any order made at any time during the period of three years immediately preceding the date on which the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunal becomes exercisable under this Act in respect of the matter to which such order relates; and
(b) no proceedings for the redressal of such grievance had been commenced before the said date before any High Court, the application shall be entertained by the Tribunal if it is made within the period referred to in clause (a), or, as the case may be, clause (b), of sub-section (1) or within a period of six months from the said date, whichever period expires later.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), an application may be admitted after the period of one year specified in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) or, as the case may be, the period of six months specified in sub-section (2), if the applicant satisfies the Tribunal that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period. The final order was passed on 19.02.2004. The Applicant could have come before the Tribunal within one year of the above order. It is now well-settled that period of limitation does not abate by repeated representations [Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. Through its CMD V. K. Thangappan and Anr., (2006) 4 SCC 322].
5. The claim of the Applicant being stale and barred by limitation cannot be entertained. The OA is dismissed in limine.
( L.K.Joshi ) ( V.K. Bali) Vice Chairman (A) Chairman sk