Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Satyendra Kumar vs M/O Railways on 28 February, 2020
1
O.A. No.200/578/2018
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR
Original Application No.200/578/2018
Jabalpur, this Friday, the 28th day of February, 2020
HON'BLE SHRI NAVIN TANDON, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Satyendra Kumar, S/o Shri Kunj Bihari Lal,
Aged about 44 years Deputy Chief Electrical Engineer TRD,
West Central Railway,Jabalpur District
Jabalpur (M.P.) PIN Code 482002 -Applicant
(By Advocate -Shri K.C. Ghildiyal)
Versus
1. Railway Board, Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Railway, Rail Bhavan,
Rafi Marg, New Delhi PIN Code 110001
Union of India through
2. The General Manager, Central Organization for Railway
Electrification 1 Nawab Yusuf Road Civil lines,
Allahabad (U.P.) PIN Code 211001
3. The Chief Electrical Engineer, Cum Chief Administrative Officer,
Central Organization for Railway Electrification 1
Nawab Yusuf Road, Civil lines
Allahabad (U.P.) PIN Code 211001 - Respondents
(By Advocate -Shri Vijay Tripathi)
Page 1 of 9
2
O.A. No.200/578/2018
ORDER
By Ramesh Singh Thakur, JM:-
Vide order dated 20.07.2018 notices were issued on M.A. No.200/801/2018 for condoning the delay in filing the Original Application. In application for condonation of delay it has been submitted by the applicant that on communication of APAR the applicant submitted a representation to respondent No.2 on 10.09.2013 with a request of upgrade the APAR to outstanding or to very good. The representation submitted by the applicant was rejected by respondent No.2 vide order dated 22.10.2013 by a cryptic and non speaking order. The applicant had immediately represented against the impugned APAR as the grading was not commensurate to his performance and it was illegal. However, after rejection of the representation, the applicant did not pursue the matter further as in view of the policy in vogue at the relevant time, the entry made in the APAR was not affecting the applicant's promotion. However, now in view of the change in the policy, the APAR will debar the applicant from promotion. Hence the applicant had decided to challenge the same before this Tribunal.Page 2 of 9 3
O.A. No.200/578/2018
2. The respondents have filed reply wherein it has been specifically submitted by the replying respondents that the applicant has worked under the respondent No.3 from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013 as Ex. Dy. CEE/MP (Core) Allahabad. The APAR was reported by the respondent No.3 by giving due consideration the actual performance during the aforesaid period. The entire career profile of the applicant was not considered while writing the APAR of the particular period. The applicant was given adequate chance for improving his performance while working under the respondent No.3 through verbal and written complaint. The Reviewing Authority and accepting authority have also recorded their opinion after going through with the APAR of the applicant. There is no illegality in the order passed by the respondents. It has been specifically submitted by the replying respondents that Original Application has been filed by the applicant is barred by limitation as prescribed under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have also gone through the documents attached with the pleadings. Page 3 of 9 4
O.A. No.200/578/2018
4. In the present Original Application the applicant has challenged the 'Good' grading recorded by respondents Nos.3 and 2 in the APAR for the year 2012-13 in the capacity of the reviewing authority and accepting authority respectively. It has been submitted by the applicant that the reporting officer had graded the applicant as 'Very Good', however respondent No.3 in an arbitrary and illegal manner downgraded the assessment to 'Good'. No reasons have been assigned by respondent No.3 for downgrading the assessment from 'Very Good' to 'Good' contrary to the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UP Jal Nigam vs Prabhat Chandra (1996) 2 SCC 363. In addition, the impugned grading has disqualified the applicant for promotion in view of the policy of promotion circulated by respondent No.1 vide circular dated 16.04.2018 according to which for promotion to NF- SAG and SAG the benchmark is fixed as 'Very Good' in each of the last five APARs is required. In the said assessment if the above assessment is allowed to stand then the applicant will be ineligible for promotion to NF-SAG and SAG. The applicant submitted representation to respondent No.2 against the impugned APAR Page 4 of 9 5 O.A. No.200/578/2018 with a request for upgradation of the final grading in APAR either to 'Very Good' or 'Outstanding' on 10.09.2013. The respondent No.2 rejected the representation of the applicant vide order dated 22.10.2013 by a cryptic and non speaking order.
5. At this preliminary stage the question for determination is regarding the application for condonation of delay in filing this Original Application.
6. Admittedly the applicant has challenged the APAR for the year 2012-13 and this Original Application has been filed on 18.06.2018. The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that at this point of time the applicant was adversely affected which is clear as per averment made in the application for condonation of delay and now with the change of policy the applicant is going to the affected because of it NF-SAG benchmark is fixed as 'Very Good' in each of the last five APARs i.e. minimum 'Very Good' is required in each of the last five APARs and if the above assessment of 2012-13 is remained as such the applicant will be ineligible for promotion to NF- SAG and SAG. It is true that the applicant is challenging the Page 5 of 9 6 O.A. No.200/578/2018 action of the respondent-department whereby the grading 'Good' has been recorded by respondents Nos.3 and 2 in the year 2012- 13. Though it has come from the pleadings that the applicant made the representation to the respondent-department and the same was rejected by a cryptic and non speaking order. The limitation for filing the Original Application is seen as per Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act 1985 which is specifically provides one year limitation from the cause of action. The reasons given in the applicant for condonation of delay is only to the fact that in the year 2012-2013 applicant was not being affected at the relevant point of time but now as with the change of policy the applicant is being affected after giving effect to the order dated 16.04.2018 whereby the benchmark is fixed as 'Very Good' in each of the last five years in APARs. The relevant Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short `the Act' ) deals with limitation for filing O.A. before this Tribunal, which reads as under:-
"21. Limitation.- (1) A Tribunal shall not admit an application,-Page 6 of 9 7
O.A. No.200/578/2018
(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 section (1) or, as the case may be, the Page 7 of 9 8 O.A. No.200/578/2018 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."
7. The Honble Apex Court in the matter of D.C.S. Negi vs Union of India and others (2019) 1 SCC (L&S) 321 has held that Administrative Tribunal has been established under the Act and Tribunal cannot admit application unless the same is made within the time specified in clauses (a) and (b) of Section 21(1) or Section 21(2) or an order is passed in terms of sub-section (3) for entertaining the application after the prescribed period. The relevant portion is as under:-
"13. A reading of the plain language of the above reproduced section makes it clear that the Tribunal cannot admit application unless the same is made within the time specified in clauses (a) and (b) of Section 21(1) or Section 21(2) or an order is passed in terms of sub-section (3) for entertaining the application after the prescribed period. Since Section 21(1) is couched in negative form, it is the duty of the Tribunal to first consider whether the application is within limitation. An application can be admitted only if the same is found to have been made within the prescribed period or sufficient cause is show for not doing so within the prescribed period and an order is passed under Section 21(3)."
8. In the present case, the cause of action arose in the year 2012- 13 and as per submission made by the applicant the representation Page 8 of 9 9 O.A. No.200/578/2018 was made in the same year and rejected. Now the present Original Application is being filed on 18.06.2018 i.e. about 3 years beyond limitation by simply saying in the application for condonation of delay that at the relevant time i.e. 2012-13 the applicant was not affected but with the change of policy the applicant is being affected hence condonation application has not given plausible explanation for approaching this Tribunal beyond limitation period as prescribed under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985.
9. Resultantly, the condonation application for condoning the delay in filing the Original Application is rejected.
10. Hence, Original Application is dismissed as barred by limitation. No costs.
(Ramesh Singh Thakur) (Navin Tandon)
Judicial Member Administrative Member
kc
Page 9 of 9