Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Daya Krishna Sharma vs Union Of India & Ors. Respondents on 16 November, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench OA No. 4028/2011 New Delhi, this the 16th of November, 2011 Honble Mr. Justice V.K. Bali, Chairman Honble Dr. R.C. Panda, Member (A) Daya Krishna Sharma Applicant (By Advocate: Mr Sewa Ram) Versus Union of India & Ors. Respondents O R D E R Justice V.K. Bali, Chairman:
Daya Krishna Sharma, applicant herein, who has since superannuated either in July, 2010 or 2011 as both dates have been mentioned in the synopsis, has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 calling in question order dated 16.03.2011 (Annexure A-1), vide which his representation against below benchmark ACRs for the year 1998-99 and 1999-2000 have been rejected. Challenge is also made to various OMs mentioned in clause (b) of the relief portion of the OA, which, according to the applicant, are in violation of the judicial precedents of Honble Supreme Court in the matter of Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India & Ors. [(2008) 8 SCC 725] and in Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar Vs. Union of India & Ors. [(2009)16 SCC 146]. He also calls in question the conduct of Select Committee held in December, 2008 for considering promotion and not approving the name of the applicant on the ground that his ACRs referred to above were below benchmark without the same having been communicated to him. The applicant also wants this Tribunal to hold that the ACRs aforesaid are illegal and to promote him for the post of Deputy Secretary by including him in the select list for the year 2003.
2. The facts as projected in this Original Application would reveal that the applicant is aggrieved by denial of his promotion to the post of Deputy Secretary for the year 2003, for which selection committee was held in December, 2008, on the ground that his two ACRs for the year 1998-9999 and 1999-2000 were adverse/below benchmark. He was once again overlooked in the matter of promotion from the select lists of 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007, result whereof was declared in January, 2009, on the same grounds. The applicant, as mentioned above, is not sure as to in which year he stood superannuated. It is, however, his case that he made a representation and it is only 18 months thereafter that it was disclosed to him that his ACRs for the years 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 were adverse or below benchmark. The applicant is stated to have made a representation on 12.08.2010 against the ACRs aforesaid, and the same was rejected after more than a year.
3. Even though the order rejecting the representation of the applicant may have been passed recently but, surely and admittedly, the applicant was superseded in the matter of promotion in the year 2008-2009, whereas the present Original Application has been filed almost at the fag end of the year 2011. Conscious of the fact that the present OA may be barred by time, the applicant has filed miscellaneous application seeking condonation of delay, paragraph 1 & 2 whereof, which are relevant, read as follows:-
1. That the applicant has filed the captioned O.A. challenging the validity of 1st respondents order dated 26-7-2011 whereby it has rejected the applicants representation relying upon its OMs dated 14-5-2009, 6-1-2010, 13-4-2010, 27-4-2010 and 19-5-2011. That it has necessitated to challenge the validity of the aforesaid OMs which are in violation of the law declared by the Honble Supreme Court in case of Dev Dutt Vs Union of India. That apart from above, the issue which led to the applicants representation dated 12-8.2010 was denial of the promotion due to consideration of un-communicated ACR by the Selection Committee held in December, 2008 January 2009 and hence while challenging the 2nd respondents order dated 16-3-2011 the challenge to the ACRs of 1998-99 and 1999-2000 and other orders/OMs has been necessitated. Accordingly, the applicant has also challenged the validity of Annexure: A-3 to A-14.
2. That, in view of above facts the applicant beg to move this application to seek condonation of delay in filing the O.A. as a matter of abundant precaution and to clarify the sequence of events which led to filing of the O.A. now.
4. Prima facie, it appears to us that present Original Application is barred by limitation and the grounds mentioned in the Application, as reproduced above, for condonation of delay may not be sufficient. However, we may take a final call on the issue after hearing the other side.
5. Issue notice to the respondents only as regards to condonation of delay for the time being, returnable on 08.12.2011.
(Dr. R.C. Panda) (V.K. Bali) Member (A) Chairman /naresh/