Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
M.P. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors. Respondents on 3 February, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench RA No. 28/2011 in MA No.299/2011 OA No. 274/2010 New Delhi, this the 3rd day of February, 2011 Honble Mr. Justice V.K. Bali, Chairman Honble Mr. L.K.Joshi, Vice Chairman(A) M.P. Mehta Applicant Versus Union of India & Ors. Respondents ORDER (By Circulation) Justice V.K. Bali, Chairman:
Original Application along with Miscellaneous Application seeking condonation of delay came up before us for hearing on 16.09.2010. Vide orders dated 20.09.2010, we had dismissed the Miscellaneous Application seeking condonation of delay, inter alia, with the observation that explanation furnished by the applicant for approaching this Tribunal beyond the period of limitation was false. The applicant filed writ against our orders in which Honble Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi passed the following order:-
1. After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the writ petition for the reason counsel urges that the petitioner intends to seek review before the Tribunal.
2. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. We make it clear that we have expressed no opinion on the merits of the decision dated 20.09.2010.
2. In the present review application, the applicant has not touched upon the issue as regards limitation in the context of our observation and findings. Now for the first time, it is stated by the applicant that his ACRs for the year 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05 are below benchmark, and under the law the respondents ought to have communicated the same to the applicant for making representation, and as long as such reports are not communicated to him, it would be a recurring cause.
3. We have specifically mentioned in our order dated 20.09.2010 rejecting the Miscellaneous Application that OA would not survive, and that the applicant knew about his performance that would not entitle him for promotion, at least when his wife had made an application complaining supersession of her husband. If the applicant had not been communicated his ACRs, which are below benchmark, he could well take up the issue at that stage instead of filing the Original Application at a stage when it had already become barred by time.
4. Finding no merit in this review application, the same is dismissed in circulation.
(L.K. Joshi) (V.K. Bali) Vice Chairman (A) Chairman /naresh/