Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Constable Harsh Singh No.47/Rb vs Commissioner Of Police on 10 January, 2012
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi R.A.No.431/2011 in O.A.No.875/2011 New Delhi, this the 10th day of January 2012 Honble Shri M.L. Chauhan, Member (J) Honble Smt. Manjulika Gautam, Member (A) Constable Harsh Singh No.47/RB s/o Shri Mohan Singh r/o F-3, Neel Kanth Apartment (Part-2) Near Govt. School Main Road Sant Nagar Burari, Delhi .. Review Applicant Versus 1. Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police MSO Building, IP Estate, New Delhi 2. Joint Commissioner of Police (HQ) Delhi Police, MSO Building IP Estate, New Delhi 3. Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police (Estt.) Delhi Police, MSO Building, IP Estate New Delhi 4. Joint Commissioner of Police Rashtrapati Bhawan, New Delhi ..Respondents in RA O R D E R (By circulation)
Shri M.L. Chauhan:
The applicant has filed this RA against the judgment dated 16.11.2011 whereby the OA was rejected on the ground that the stale claim and dead issue cannot be raised at this stage taking into consideration the various judgments of the Apex Court and also on account of impleading necessary parties. It may be stated that the relief sought for by the applicant in the OA was that he should be confirmed as Constable w.e.f. 9.5.1989 whereas his confirmation was deferred for six months and later confirmed w.e.f. 9.11.1989 vide order dated 27.8.1991. Since the further promotion of the applicant was to be made based upon the confirmation in the lower grade, persons junior to the applicant were promoted in the years 2007 and 2009 and the applicant has prayed that he may be promoted to the post of Head Constable with effect from 2007 at par with his juniors.
2. Now the applicant has filed this RA on the ground that since the respondents have not circulated any seniority list, the OA was not time barred and the Tribunal has not taken into consideration this aspect of the matter, and also that there was no need to implead affected party as respondents in the OA.
3. The contentions raised by the applicant in the RA, though attractive, deserve out right rejection, inasmuch as he is not seeking relief of seniority based upon the date of his initial appointment but he is seeking promotion as Head Constable from the year 2007 when person junior to him has been promoted. In the judgment rendered in the OA, it has been noticed that not only in the year 2007 but also in the year 2009 the persons junior to the applicant were promoted vide order dated 1.1.2009 and the name of the applicant was not even considered. Thus, the contention of the applicant that there was no necessity to implead affected parties as respondents in the OA cannot be accepted, as in case the seniority is assigned to the applicant based upon his appointment and also pre-poning his date of confirmation, which was deferred on account of his unsatisfactory record, in that eventuality, persons, who have been promoted in years 2007 and 2009, will be adversely affected, as most of them will be junior to the applicant, thereby affecting their right for further promotion to the higher post. The applicant was well aware that in terms of the rules, which were in vogue, further promotion to the post of Head Constable has to be made from list C, which is prepared based upon confirmation. It is on this basis the applicant has specifically prayed that his date of confirmation may be antedated, although the order, whereby the date of confirmation was deferred for six months, was passed in 1991. Thus, whether the seniority list was circulated or not is of no consequence, as the main relief sought for by the applicant is regarding promotion to the higher post of Head Constable when his so-called junior persons were promoted to the said post w.e.f. 6.11.2007 and thereafter on 1.1.2009. Thus, the plea raised by the applicant that the seniority list was not circulated is of no consequence, as the further promotion has to be made on the basis of conformation of Constable and the respondents have placed on record the order dated 18.3.1990, as annexed with the reply in the OA, which shows that the confirmation of the applicant as Constable has been deferred for six months due to unsatisfactory service record and he shall be treated as confirmed w.e.f. 9.5.1989. It is this order, which is formed basis for promotion and whether the respondents have circulated the seniority list or not is of no consequence. Thus, it was on these basis the Tribunal held that it is not permissible to rake up the issue regarding promotion of the applicant based upon the order of confirmation after a long of lapse of 21 years, especially when the junior persons have already been promoted in the years 2007 and 2009 and they have not been impleaded in the OA being necessary parties. Thus, the ground raised by the applicant in the RA does not materially change the judgment rendered by this Tribunal even if the seniority list has not been circulated by the respondents.
4. Accordingly, the RA is dismissed, in circulation, in terms of the provisions contained in Section 22 (3) (f) of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
( Smt. Manjulika Gautam ) ( M L Chauhan ) Member (A) Member (J) /sunil/