Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Rajender Kumar Aggarwal vs East Delhi Municipal Corporation on 15 May, 2013
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi O.A.No.1585/2013 Order Reserved on: 13.05.2013 Order pronounced on 15.05.2013 Honble Shri V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J) Honble Shri V. N. Gaur, Member (A) Rajender Kumar Aggarwal s/o Late Sh. B.R.Aggarwal r/o B-28/2, Gali No.19 Parwana Road Jitar Nagar Delhi 110 051. Applicant (By Advocate: Shri V. K.Sharma) Versus 1. East Delhi Municipal Corporation through its Commissioner Udyog Sadan Industrial Area Patparganj Delhi 110 092. 2. East Delhi Municipal Corporation through its Dy. Commissioner Shahdara (South Zone) EDMC Office Karkardooma Delhi. Respondents O R D E R By V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J):
The applicant joined as Assistant Sanitary Inspector in the respondent-East Delhi Municipal Corporation on 18.11.1987. Later, he was promoted as Sanitary Inspector in June, 2010.
2. The applicant submits that he completed the 12 years regular service in the category of Assistant Sanitary Inspector on 18.11.1999, and as per the Assured Career Progression Scheme of August, 1999 (ACP Scheme), he is entitled for his first financial upgradation w.e.f. the said date. He further submits that since the respondents have not granted him the same, he preferred representation dated 14.02.2013 requesting them to grant him first financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme w.e.f. 18.11.1999, however, the respondents vide their endorsement dated 27.03.2013 (sic. 27.03.2012), made on his representation, stated that in view of the pendency of RDA case, vide Case No.03/106/2009 dated 16.06.2010, his request cannot be considered. Aggrieved by the said endorsement, the applicant preferred the present OA.
3. Shri V. K. Sharma, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that though the applicant is claiming his first financial upgrdation under the ACP Scheme of 1999, w.e.f. 18.11.1999, i.e., the date on which he has completed the required 12 years of regular service in the cadre of Assistant Sanitary Inspector, and that though he made his first representation in this regard to the respondents on 14.02.2013, there is no delay in filing the present OA. He further submits that since there is no delay, there is no necessity to file any application seeking to condone the delay also.
4. The said contention of the applicant cannot be accepted. Even according to him, the cause of action for the OA arose on 18.11.1999, i.e., the date on which he completes the 12 years regular service as Assistant Sanitary Inspector and that he become eligible for granting the first financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme of 1999.
5. The present OA is hopelessly barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, as held by the Honble Supreme Court in D.C.S.Negi v. Union of India & Others [Civil Appeal No.7956/2011 dated 07.03.2011].
6. In the said case, the Apex Court, while dismissing the Appeal, has emphasized that the Administrative Tribunal established under the Act is duty bound to first consider whether the application is within limitation, and that an application can be admitted only if the same is found to have been made within the prescribed period or sufficient cause is shown for not doing so within the prescribed period and an order is passed under Section 21 (3). The relevant observations of the Honble Apex Court are extracted below:
A reading of the plain language of Section 21 makes it clear that the Tribunal cannot admit an 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 shown for not doing so within the prescribed period and an order is passed under Section 21(3). Thus, in terms of the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, an application has to be filed within the period prescribed above and there is a clear bar to admit a belated application unless the applicant is able to show sufficient grounds for not making the application within the prescribed period.
7. In the present case the applicant has not mentioned any justifiable reasons why he has not chosen even to make a representation to the respondents ventilating his grievance for more than about 13 years. The applicant further miserably failed even to state that, when he came to know that he is entitled for granting of the first financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme of 1999 since been superseded by MACP Scheme dated 19.05.2009.
8. The law of limitation is founded on public policy to ensure that no one should resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive only for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury. At the same time, the Courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time.
9. As held by the Honble Apex Court in D.C.S.Negis case (supra), an application can be admitted only if the same is found to have been made within the prescribed period or sufficient cause is shown for not doing so within the prescribed period and an order is passed under Section 21(3).
10. Since the applicant neither filed the application within the prescribed period nor shown any sufficient cause to entertain the application beyond the said period of limitation under Section 21 of the A.T.Act, 1985, the present OA deserves to be dismissed.
11. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(V. N. Gaur) (V. Ajay Kumar) Member (A) Member (J) /nsnrvak/