Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
P.L. Meena R/O P-135 vs Union Of India on 10 November, 2009
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH OA No.2710 of 2008 New Delhi this the 10th day of November, 2009 Honble Shri N.D. Dayal, Member (A) Honble Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma, Member (J) P.L. Meena r/o P-135, Vasant Range Colony, Delhi Cantt. .... Applicant ( By Advocate : Ms. Bimla Devi for Shri G.S. Lobana) VERSUS 1. Union of India, through Secretary, Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001. 2. Deputy Director General (P.A.F.) Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001. 3. Chief Post Master General, Rajasthan Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302001. 4. Additional Director General, Army Postal Service Corps, C/o 56, APO. 5. Officer Incharge, P&T Adm Cell, Army Postal Service Centre, Kamptee APO, C/o 56 APO. .. Respondents ( By Advocate Shri Krishna Kumar) O R D E R Shri Dharam Paul Sharma, Member (J) :
The present Application has been filed by the Applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking a direction to the respondents to consider his request dated 10.10.2001 for change of his cadre from the cadre of Inspector of Post Offices (hereinafter referred to as IPO) to the cadre of Junior Accounts Officer (hereinafter referred to as JAO in Rajasthan Postal Circle in the office of Director of Postal Accounts, Jaipur and quash the impugned order at Annexure A-I. Annexure A-1 is a speaking order passed by the respondents in compliance with the directions issued by this Tribunal at New Delhi in OA No.1359/2008. It will be relevant to note in this regard that in OA No.1359/2008 directions were sought for consideration, disposal and passing of the speaking order on the representation dated 24.09.2007, copy of which is at Annexure A-1 to the said OA. But in the present OA, similar directions are sought with regard to the applicants representation/ request dated 10.10.2001 and not with regard to the applicants representation dated 24.09.2007, which was the subject of consideration in OA 1359/2008. We would refer to this aspect at a later stage. The applicant has, however, not annexed a copy of request dated 10.10.2001 in respect of whose consideration, he is seeking direction in this OA.
2. The applicant joined the postal department in PA cadre in Rajasthan postal circle on 7.8.1983 against ST quota. He qualified All India Postal Inspectors Examination on 18.10.1989. He also passed Junior Accounts Officers Examination Part II on 31.12.1993. The pay scales of the post of Inspector of Post Offices and Junior Accounts Officer were the same as on 1.1.1996, i.e., Rs.5500-9000. Since the applicant was qualified to be appointed against both the aforesaid posts, he was asked to give his option as to which post, he would like to be promoted. The applicant submitted his option on 10.10.2001 stating that he was willing to draw IPO scale from the date of his promotion in IPO cadre. A day after, he submitted another letter stating that he was willing to hold a lien in IPO cadre till such time he be absorbed in JAO cadre. Acting on the applicants request as contained in his letter dated 10.10.2001, he was promoted in IPO cadre. It transpires that the scale of JAO was later on changed from Rs.5500-9000 to Rs.6500-10500. In view of this, the applicant after having worked in IPO cadre for considerable time sought change from the cadre of IPO to the cadre of JAO with a view to draw higher pay scale, as referred to above. The same was declined by the respondents for the reason that option once exercised was final and there was no provision for change of option. The applicant made a number of representations thereafter. In respect of one such representations dated 9.7.2002, he approached the Jaipur Bench of this Tribunal in OA NO.455/2002 with Misc. Application NO.499/2002 seeking condonation of delay in filing the aforesaid OA. The said Misc. Application No.499/2002 in OA 455/2002 was rejected being devoid of substance and the consequently, the said OA was also dismissed being time barred. Thereafter the applicant continued to make repeated representations. In respect of one such representations dated 24.9.2007, he approached this Tribunal at Principal Bench by filing OA No.1359/2008 seeking direction to the respondents for disposal of the said representation. The OA No.1359/2008 was disposed of accordingly by issuing directions to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the applicant dated 24.9.2007, which was annexed to the OA No.1359/2008. The said representation was duly considered and rejected by passing an order, which is impugned in these proceedings.
3. The application was strongly opposed by the respondents on the ground that application of the applicant having already dismissed earlier by Jaipur Bench in respect of the same relief, which he is seeking, cannot be entertained now afresh in these proceedings. The applicant has obtained directions from this Tribunal in OA 1359/2008 without disclosing the earlier proceedings in OA 499/2002 (Jaipur) and after having suppressed the material information having significant bearing on the issue involved in the present case. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to any relief in these proceedings and these proceedings are thus liable to be dismissed at the very threshold.
4. The applicants counsel on the other hand contended that the earlier application was not disposed of on merit and the principle of res judicata does not apply in this case. The applicant has indeed given a conditional option as evidenced by option dated 11.10.2001. It is further contended by the applicants counsel that similar relief has been granted to other applicants in Orissa Postal Circle.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents controverted these contentions of the applicants counsel on the ground that firstly there is no provision for change of option and option given once is final. The option given by the applicant on 10.10.2001 was unconditional and unqualified and the same has been duly acted upon by the respondents. This option is not wiped out by making any option as claimed by the applicant dated 11.10.2001, which is non-est for all practical purposes since the option given earlier was as per the rules and accordingly valid and has been rightly acted upon. The case of the employees of the Orissa Postal Circle was distinguishable on facts.
6. We have given our careful consideration to the respective contentions of the parties and we have also gone through the records of the case.
7. We find substance in respondents contention that the applicant has not approached this Tribunal with clean hands. In Column 7 of the Original Application, the applicant has referred to earlier preferred OA No.1359/2008 wherein directions were issued to consider and decide the pending representation of the applicant dated 24.9.2007. The applicant has, however, been conspicuously silent as to the earlier OA No.455/2002 wherein similar relief sought by the applicant was declined by the Jaipur Bench of this Tribunal for the reason that the said Application being time barred. If the relief sought could be denied on the ground of limitation as far back as 2004 by no stretch of reasoning the same relief may be sought and granted in these proceedings after five years of earlier refusal. The applicant has not adduced any plausible explanation as to why the order in OA No.455/2002 dated 31.3.2004 was not duly disclosed in these proceedings. It is a well established proposition of law which needs no further authority that repeated representations would not give an applicant fresh lease of limitation in respect of any cause of action, which has already been rendered time barred earlier. In these premises, the present Application is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground that the relief sought herein has already been declined earlier to the applicant in OA 455/2002 and the applicant has tried to overreach this Tribunal by suppressing material facts having vital bearing on the issue involved here.
8. Even otherwise on merits also, the applicant has not been able to make out a case for the grant of relief as prayed for. The applicant has exercised his option on 10.10.2001 when he furnished his option certificate in the following terms:-
I, JC-834003-F Sub PL Meena of Addl Dte Gen of APS (PLI Cell) is willing to draw the IPO scale from the date of my promotion in IPO cadre.
9. The respondents have duly acted upon this option and promoted him in IPO cadre. He submitted another option certificate on 11.10.2001, stating that he is willing to hold lien in IPO cadre till such time he is absorbed in JAO cadre. On December 15, 2005, the applicant made a request for change of option from IPO cadre to JAO cadre in the following terms:-
.The scale of IPO and JAO were equal wef 01 Jan 1996 and as per DG post letter no.9-25/99-SPG dated 29 Dec 1999 I have given the option for IPO cadre in 2001 now the scale of JAO have been change from 5500-9000 to 6500-10500 and I want to change the option from IPO cadre to JAO cadre.
10. The learned counsel for the applicant failed to show any rule or provision which permits such a change of cadre after a lapse of considerable period. In the impugned order, the respondents have, inter alia, observed in para 2 thereof where it is stated that The representation was considered by the competent authority in the Postal Directorate and the decision of the Dte. was communicated to this office vide their letter No.303(12)/2008/PA Admn.III/245 dated 4.9.2008 and directed to this office to further communicate to Shri P.L. Meena in which the Dte. made observations that in accordance with Directorates clarification on the subject circulated to all HOCs under No.9-25/99-SPG dated 29.12.1999, the representationist should have exercise his option to select either of the cadre for promotion i.e. IPO or JAO but he had exercised his option only for IPO cadre on 10 Oct., 2001 and his name deleted from the list of qualified JAO Part II (Postal) examination. The above option makes him ineligible for getting his promotion to JAO cadre, as the option such would be final. As such, the change of option is not permissible in the case. The learned counsel for the applicant failed to controvert the correctness or otherwise of these findings recorded by the respondents in the impugned order. As such we do not find any substance in the present Application and the same is accordingly dismissed.
11. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Application is dismissed with costs which is quantified at Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only).
(Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma) (N.D. Dayal)
Member (J) Member (A)
/ravi/