Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
Sk Meeravali vs M/O Railways on 14 March, 2022
MA 149/2020 in OASR 376/2020
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH
AT HYDERABAD
MA No. 149/2020 in OASR/376/2020
Date of CAV: 07.03.2022
Date of Pronouncement:14.03.2022
Hon'ble Mr. Ashish Kalia, Judl. Member
Hon'ble Mr.B.V.Sudhakar, Admn. Member
Between:
Sk. Meeravali, S/o. Sk. Bismillah,
Aged 51 years, Occ: Office Superintendent,
O/o. The Divisional Railway Manager,
South Central Railway, Vijayawada Division,
Vijayawada, Krishna District, AP.
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. KRKV Prasad)
And
1. Union of India, Rep. by
The General Manager,
South Central Railway,
Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager,
South Central Railway, Vijayawada Division,
Vijayawada, Krishna District, AP.
3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer,
South Central Railway, Vijayawada Division,
Vijayawada, Krishna District, AP.
4. Mrs. S. Divya Sastry,
Occ: Office Superintendent,
O/o. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer,
South Central Railway, Vijayawada Division,
Vijayawada, Krishna District, AP.
....Respondents
(By Advocate : Mr. N. Srinatha Rao, SC for Railway)
Page 1 of 5
MA 149/2020 in OASR 376/2020
ORDER
(As per Hon'ble Mr. B.V. Sudhakar, Admn. Member)
2. MA 149/2020 has been filed for condonation of delay of 1090 days in filing the OA (Diary No. 376/2020).
3. The applicant submits in the MA that he was appointed as Constable in RPF in 1990 in the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590 and was medically found unfit on 22.08.2002. On medically invalidation, alternative appointment as Skilled Fitter Grade III (now called as Technician III) was provided to the applicant in the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590 against medical advice. This Tribunal, when approached with the grievance in OA 263/2004 passed orders and thereupon, the respondents, after much persuasion provided alternative appointment as Senior Clerk on 09.08.2007. Without fixing seniority, the applicant was granted promotion in the alternative post of Senior Clerk. The representations made in regard to the seniority were not attended to properly. Number of juniors to the applicant who were appointed later to the applicant were given promotion as Senior Clerk w.e.f. 09.04.1997 whereas his entry in the grade of Senior Clerk is shown as 02.03.2007. Similarly, to the next grade of Office Superintendent, promotion was delayed till 01.11.2013 while juniors were promoted w.e.f. 16.09.2011. Submitting representations did not yield any favourable result. The applicant claims that he comes under the ambit of Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities) Protection of Rights and Full Participation Act, 1995 and also under the provisions of Para 1310 of IREM.
Page 2 of 5 MA 149/2020 in OASR 376/2020
4. The applicant contends that by showing improper seniority, career of the applicant has been adversely impacted. The applicant claims that he could not approach the Tribunal within the period of limitation as the matter was being corresponded with the respondents. Based on the same, he has prayed for condonation of delay of 1090 days.
5. The respondents opposed the MA by filing reply statement wherein, while confirming the career details of the applicant, they state that the applicant had earlier filed OA 263/2004. They submit that the applicant is seeking his placement above the senior clerks who were appointed as Juniors Clerks after 15.03.1990 and to grant promotions as Senior Clerk from 09.04.1997 and Office Superintendent w.e.f. 16.09.2011 on par with 4th respondent with all consequential benefits. They contend that on his medical decategorization from the post of Constable, the applicant should not have joined as Technician Gr. III and should not have accepted the subsequent promotions to the post of Technician Gr. II and Gr. I and should not have enjoyed the pay fixations on such promotions and also should not have accepted for absorption in the alternative post of Senior Clerk and later should not have accepted the promotion to the post of Office Superintendent and should not enjoyed the higher pay. The applicant after enjoying all the benefits at regular intervals at his will and after lapse of substantial period of time, filed the present OA in 2020 vide Diary No. 3672/2020 praying to consider his seniority on par with employees who have worked as Junior Clerk on the date of his appointment as Constable in view of medical decategorization. The cause of action when arose when he Page 3 of 5 MA 149/2020 in OASR 376/2020 was medically decategorized in 2002, and there was delay of more than 18 years in filing the OA from the date of issuance of seniority list.
The respondents have cited the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in support of their claim:
(a) In State of T.N. v. Seshachalam, (2007) 10 SCC 137, it was held that "..filing of representations alone would not save the period of limitation.
Delay or laches is a relevant factor for a court of law to determine the question as to whether the claim made by an applicant deserves consideration..."
(b) In State of Uttaranchal & Anr. v. Sri Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari & Ors, 2013 (6) SLR 629, it was held that a stale or a dead issue/ dispute cannot be revived even if such a representation has either been decided by the authority or got decided by getting a direction from the court as the issue regarding delay and latches is to be decided with reference to the original cause of action and not with reference to any such order passed.
(c) In State of Orissa v. Pyarimohan Samantaray & Ors, (1977) 3 SCC 396, the Apex Court held that mailing of repeated representations, after the rejection of one representation, could not be held to be a satisfactory explanation of the delay and in such even, the petition had been dismissed for delay alone.
(d) In Shiv Dass v. Union of India & Ors, (2007) 9 SCC 274, the Apex Court held that:
"9. It has been pointed out by this Court in a number of cases that representations would not be adequate explanation to take care of delay. This was first stated in K.V. Rajalakshmiah Setty v. State of Mysore [AIR Page 4 of 5 MA 149/2020 in OASR 376/2020 1967 SC 993]. There is a limit to the time which can be considered reasonable for making representations..."
6. Heard both the counsel and perused the pleadings on record. 7(I) The applicant is seeking revision of seniority for which the cause of action arose in 2002. He submits that he has submitted representations and there being no proper action on behalf of the respondents, he filed the present OA with delay of 1090 days.
II. We are not persuaded with the submissions of the applicant since he has accepted the promotions as referred to above without contest, at the appropriate interval of time. The judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited by the respondents do direct that delay and latches, which could not be explained, can be no basis to condone the delay. Further, the applicant seeks revision of seniority at a much belated stage. It is well settled position of law that settled seniority cannot be unsettled at a belated point of time, which would have cascading effect on several others.
Therefore, for the aforesaid discussion, we are not inclined to condone the delay. MA is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, OASR No.376/2020 stands rejected. No order as to costs.
(B.V. SUDHAKAR) (ASHISH KALIA)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
/evr/
Page 5 of 5