Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Patanjali Sharma vs Union Of India on 9 January, 2009
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH RA 184/2008 in OA 2793/2005, MA 182/2008 New Delhi this the 9th day of January, 2009 HONBLE MR. JUSTICE M. RAMACHANDRAN, VICE CHAIRMAN (J) HONBLE MR. N.D. DAYAL, MEMBER (A) 1. Patanjali Sharma, S/o Shri Atma Ram Sharma, Aged about 47 years, R/o 907, Sector-VIII, R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110022. 2. Mukesh Chandra Kukreti, S/o late Shri Maheshanand Kukreti, Aged about 41 years, R/o 8/4C, Sector-II, DIZ Area, Gole Market, New Delhi-110001. Applicants. (Applicants in person) Versus 1. Union of India Through its Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, North Block, New Delhi-110001. 2. Central Secretariat Service, Section Officers Association, Through its General Secretary, Shri D.N. Sahoo, S/o late Shri H.N. Sahoo, R/o 479, Sector-5, Pushp Vihar, New Delhi-110 017. 3. Arun Choudhary, S/o Shri H.S. Choudhary, R/o F-1/4480, Mahavir Enclave, New Delhi-110045. 4. J.B. Sharma, S/o Shri J.L. Sharma, Under Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Room No. 94C, North Block, New Delhi-110001. 5. S.K. Garg, S/o Shri Ishwar Chand, Under Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Room No. 720, `A Wing, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001. 6. S.K. Chhikara, Shri D.C. Chhikara, Under Secretary, Ministry of Civil Aviation, Room No. 274, Rajeev Gandhi Bhawan, New Delhi-110003. Respondents. O R D E R
Honble Mr. Justice M. Ramachandran, Vice Chairman (J).
An application for condonation of delay had been filed. When we find that the review application is filed within the time prescribed by the High Court, vide judgment in WP (C) No. 7946/2008, even without issuing notice to the respondents, the delay stands condoned.
2. The review application was heard. Both the applicants were present and they had made submissions pointing out that there was cause for review of the order dated 24.04.2008.
3. However, we hardly find any sufficient grounds made out for compelling us to exercise our review jurisdiction. Unsatisfied about the earlier findings, the applicants are obviously taking effort to argue the matter de novo so as to see whether possibly a different view will be taken by the Bench than that had been arrived at by the earlier order.
3. By an executive order, the cadre to which applicants belong had been deleted from the field of promotion to the position of Under Secretary in the Central Secretariat Service. This had been the subject matter of challenge in the O.A. We had occasion to point out that there were no comparison between the concerned services, and two services have separate identities based on structure, functions, duties and method of recruitment at different levels. It had been found that with a view to address the needs and requirements of the services and to confer on cadres benefits of promotions in an equitable manner, steps had been taken by the Government, pursuant to recommendation of expert bodies and after discussions with the different groups, Government had come up with recommendations which had come finally in the form of the impugned order in the O.A. We had also noticed that although there was possibility of lateral entry, for the officers concerned to the higher post at one point of time, provision for separate hierarchy and separate promotional opportunities to both cadres, had come to be accepted and followed. It had duly obtained statutory backing. When in essence, the attempt of the applicants were to see that the matter was to be subjected to a fresh hearing, it cannot be carried out within the purview of review jurisdiction.
4. It is also disclosed that the amendments brought in line with the impugned orders are already subjected to challenge in separate proceedings. We find no merit in the application. RA is dismissed.
(N.D. Dayal) (M. Ramachandran) Member (A) Vice Chairman (J) `SRD