Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
P. Venkatesan S/O Punnusamy vs Secretary To Government Of India on 29 April, 2010
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI Original Application No.1355/2010 This the 29th day of April, 2010 HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE V. K. BALI, CHAIRMAN HONBLE SHRI L. K. JOSHI, VICE-CHAIRMAN (A) P. Venkatesan S/O Punnusamy, R/o a-2/16, Sri Agrasen Apartments, Plot No.10, Sector-7, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075. Applicant ( By Shri Krishan Kumar, Advocate ) Versus 1. Secretary to government of India, Department of Personnel & Training, North Block, New Delhi-110001. 2. Establishment Officer & Additional Secretary to Govt. of India, Department of Personnel & training, North Block, New Delhi-110001. Respondents O R D E R Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman:
P. Venkatesan, the applicant herein, a direct recruit Section Officer through IAS Examination, 1978 and belonging to Central Secretariat Service, who joined in the Ministry of Commerce on 29.9.1980, has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking direction to be issued to DOP&T, the 1st respondent herein, to issue orders for his in situ proforma promotion as Joint Secretary from the date of panel, i.e., February, 2007, and for grant of all monetary and other consequential benefits as may be admissible to the post of Joint Secretary.
2. Brief facts on which the reliefs as referred to above are sought to rest, reveal that the applicant after his initial appointment in 1980 got his due promotions, the last being as Director in the Department of Consumer Affairs, based upon the panel of 1998. He complains of having been denied the post of Joint Secretary for the only reason that due to negligence on the part of DOP&T, which failed to follow the rule of law as also principles of natural justice, inasmuch as when the panel for Joint Secretaries was drawn on 23.2.2007, he was not considered for want of service particulars and ACRs. It is his case that DOP&T brought out a panel of 20 officers of Central Secretariat Service for holding the post of Joint Secretary and equivalent posts under Central Staffing Scheme, consisting of Director level officers, in February, 2007. List of such officers as provided by DOP&T vide letter dated 8.7.2008 is annexed with the OA as Annexure A-1, and, it is further his case that the panel brought out by DOP&T neither followed the rule of law nor the basic principles of natural justice as the said panel or eligibility list was prepared without calling for/taking into account the ACRs of the applicant reportedly missing for certain years thereby depriving him of rightful promotion as Joint Secretary. As soon as the applicant came to know from reliable sources that Joint Secretary panel had already been brought out by DOP&T and his name was not considered for inclusion in the said panel simply for the reason that his ACRs were not available, he immediately represented to the then Secretary to Government of India, DOP&T on 10.1.2008, and also met him in person requesting to review his case for inclusion in the panel of Joint Secretary so as to protect his legitimate rights/interest and not to make him suffer for no fault of his, as he was to retire on 30.6.2008. The applicant also made representation to the then Establishment Officer & Additional Secretary, DOP&T on 14.1.2008 and met him in person as well, followed by yet another letter on 14.3.2008. He did not get any response, and thus made a representation to the Cabinet Secretary on 15.4.2008, and on his direction, met the then special Secretary in the Cabinet Secretariat on 29.4.2008. No decision has, however, been taken by the respondents on his representations referred to above, and in the meanwhile he has retired. The applicant has also made pleadings as to how, as per the procedure established, ACRs are called and eligible officers are considered, and the persons brought on the panel are given in situ proforma promotions.
3. We have heard the learned counsel representing the applicant and with his assistance examined the records of the case. In the first blush, the applicant may appear to have genuine grievance, but what we find from the records is that ten out of those who were included in the panel prepared in February, 2007, came to be ultimately given in situ upgradation only on 30.10.2008, which happens to be after the date of retirement of the applicant. It is not the case of the applicant that the panel, because of availability of vacancies, had to be prepared earlier in point of time. There are no pleadings made to that effect. Even if there was delay in preparing the panel and the vacancies of Joint Secretary were available far earlier to that, the applicant could get in situ upgradation after his retirement only if persons junior to him may have been promoted from a date which may happen to be earlier to his retirement. That is not so, as in situ upgradation to persons who came to be included in the panel in February, 2007 came about only on 30.10.2008, as may appear from the order on that behalf placed by the applicant himself on records (page 83 of the paper book).
4. The law with regard to entitlement of an employee to in situ upgradation or promotion after retirement has been subject matter of judicial precedents. In a recent decision in OA No.1409/2009 and connected cases in P. G. George, etc. v Union of India & Others, decided on 22.4.2010, after taking into consideration the entire case law and instructions dealing with the subject, we held that promotion after retirement can only be given if a person junior to the concerned person may have been given such promotion from a date earlier to retirement of the concerned employee. Even though, therefore, the applicant may have pleaded such facts so that his name should be included in the panel prepared in February, 2007, and even if the relief to that extent may be given to the applicant and he is brought in the said panel, it would have no tangible results. Further, we find from the records of the case that the applicant having not been included in the panel of February, 2007, has raked up the issue in March, 2010. He made his first representation on 10.1.2008 and kept on making such representations, which, according to his case, were not responded to. As per provisions contained in Section 21 of the Act of 1985, where an appeal or representation has been made and a period of six months has expired, the limitation to approach the tribunal would be one year thereafter. If, therefore, the applicant was not getting any reply, he could wait for a year after expiry of six months from making the representation, to approach this Tribunal. Concededly, he has approached this Tribunal far after expiry of the said period and, therefore, present Application would also be barred by limitation. No application seeking condonation has been filed. If perhaps, the applicant may have had even a triable case on merits, we may have given opportunity to him to move an application seeking condonation of delay and consider the same if the same may have contained sufficient reasons for the applicant approaching this Tribunal at a late stage, but since we do not find any merit in the Original Application and no relief can be given to the applicant, in the facts and circumstances as mentioned above, there would be no need to adopt such a course.
5. Finding no merit in this Application, we dismiss the same in limine.
( L. K. Joshi ) ( V. K. Bali ) Vice-Chairman (A) Chairman /as/