Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
Harihar Das vs D/O Post on 7 April, 2022
1 M.A.No. 260/00113 of 2019 with
O.A.No. 260/00060 of 2019
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
M.A.No. 260/00113 of 2019
With
O.A.No. 260/00060 of 2019
Reserved on 08.03.2022 Pronounced on 07.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. DEVENDRA CHAUDHRY, MEMBER (A)
THE HON'BLE MR. SWARUP KUMAR MISHRA, MEMBER (J)
Harihar Das, aged about 72 years, S/o Late Ratan Das,
of Village- Patharaduara, P.O.- Benagaria, PS-
Khandapadagarh, Dist- Nayagarh, Retired Zamadar
Nayagarh Head Post Office Pin0752077.
.......Applicant
Vs
1. Union of India represented through its Director
General, Department of Posts, Ministry of
Communication, Govt. of India, Dak Bhawan, New
Delhi -110001.
2. Chief Post Master General Orissa Circle,
Bhubaneswar, Dist- Khurda 751001.
3. Sr. Supt. of Post Office, Puri Division, Puri,
At/PO/Dist. Puri-752001.
4. The Post Master Nayagarh Head Office, Nayagarh,
At/PO/Dist. Nayagarh-752069.
........Respondents
2 M.A.No. 260/00113 of 2019 with
O.A.No. 260/00060 of 2019
For the Applicant : Mr. S.Behera, Counsel
For the Respondents : Mr. S.S.Patra, Counsel
ORDER
Swarup Kumar Mishra, Member (J):
The applicant has filed M.A.No. 113/2019 seeking condonation of delay in filing O.A. No. 60/2019 before this Tribunal. In the O.A. the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
"(i) Admit the original application.
(ii) Call for the relevant documents from the respondents and after hearing be pleased to direct the respondents to grant benefits of BCR scheme of the government for financial up-gradation payable since the date of his entitlement by calculating 26 years of his service under the govt. on consideration of his previous service under the govt. in DNK project.
2. The applicant submits that he was initially appointed as Choudhury in Dandakaranya Project (DNK Project) w.e.f. 29.06.1967 and his services were, subsequently, regularized as Helper Greaser in DNK Project vide order dated 20.09.1976. Applicant, being found surplus, was relieved from DNK Project on 25.02.1984 and joined in Postal Department on 28.02.1984. The applicant, while working as such, was granted benefit of Time Bound One Promotion 3 M.A.No. 260/00113 of 2019 with O.A.No. 260/00060 of 2019 Scheme (TBOP Scheme) w.e.f. 05.03.2000, i.e. on completion of 16 years of service in the Postal Department. Ld Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant should have been granted the benefits under TBOP much prior to it while taking into consideration his previous service under DNK Project. Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant on completion of 26 years of regular service, including his previous services rendered in DNK Project, was entitled for the benefits under BCR Scheme. He further submits that by virtue of the orders passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 406/2003 dated 07.10.2004, the applicants therein who were similarly situated to that of the present applicant, were granted BCR benefits after taking into account their previous service under DNK project vide Annexure-A/2 dated 16.08.2005. Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that although applicant repeatedly kept representing before the authorities but he was not considered for the benefits under BCR. Applicant, in the meanwhile, retired on superannuation w.e.f. 30.06.2006.
3. Respondents have filed their reply to the M.A. They have clarified that the TBOP Scheme came into existence w.e.f. 30.11.1983 and the applicant was granted the said benefit w.e.f. 05.03.2000 taking into account his date of entry in the Department of Posts from 26.02.1984. The BCR Scheme was introduced 4 M.A.No. 260/00113 of 2019 with O.A.No. 260/00060 of 2019 in the Department of Posts w.e.f. 01.10.1991 for one more financial upgradation on completion of 26 years of regular qualified service in the basic grade in the Department and since the applicant had not completed the period of service required under the Scheme and had retired on superannuation w.e.f. 30.06.2006, there was no scope of granting him financial benefits under BCR Scheme. Respondents have further controverted the stand of the applicant that he has been representing since 2006 as nothing is found on record. Applicant, when represented, was intimated by the authorities vide letter dated 20.04.2018 that as per the Directorate Letter No. 93-33/2004- SPB-II dated 08.04.2005, the benefit of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble CAT, Cuttack Bench in O.A. 406/2003 is to be given to those who were applicants in the said O.A. only and since the applicant was not a party in the said O.A. he cannot be given the said benefit. Ld. Counsel for the respondents further submits that the applicant was given TBOP w.e.f. 05.03.2000 taking into account his date of entry in the Department of Posts from 26.02.1984 and if he had any objection with regard to the same he should have made objection at the appropriate time. In one hand, with one analogy, the applicant accepted the TBOP benefits w.e.f. 05.03.2000 taking into account his services rendered in Postal Department only but, on the other hand, he is claiming BCR benefits 5 M.A.No. 260/00113 of 2019 with O.A.No. 260/00060 of 2019 taking into account his services rendered in DNK Project also almost 19 years after grant of TBOP. They submits that there being inordinate delay in approaching this Tribunal, the O.A is hit by the delay and laches and, accordingly, should be dismissed on this ground alone.
4. Ld. Counsels for both the parties were heard and materials on record perused.
5. The fact derived from the argument of the Ld. Counsel as well as from the pleadings is that applicant is not claiming for benefit of BCR Scheme but in the garb of relief claimed by him he is trying build up his eligibility for BCR benefits by counting the services rendered by him in previous organization, i.e. DNK Project, which at this belated stage cannot be granted. Had it been a case of grant of BCR benefits only, the matter would have been different. Further, the applicant is claiming BCR benefits basing upon the order passed by this Tribunal in O.A. 406/2003, which was passed way back on 07.10.2004. No material has been placed before us that the applicant was vigilant at that point of time and had approached the authorities at appropriate time to grant similar benefits. This Tribunal further finds that the applicant except bald assertion that he has been representing since 2005 could not produce any document in support of his claim.
6 M.A.No. 260/00113 of 2019 with
O.A.No. 260/00060 of 2019
6. We are fortified by the following decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the present subject:
In Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board Vs. T.T.Murali Babu, 2014 (4) SCC 108, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows"
"Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the Court would be under legal obligation to scrutinize whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the Court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant - a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, "procrastination is the greatest thief of time" and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis. In the case at hand, though there has been four years' delay in approaching the court, yet the writ court chose not to address the same. It is the duty of the court to scrutinize whether such enormous delay is to be ignored without any justification. That apart, in the present case, such belated approach gains more significance as the respondent- employee being absolutely careless to his duty and nurturing a lackadaisical attitude to the responsibility had remained unauthorisedly absent on the pretext of some kind of ill health. We repeat at the cost of repetition that remaining 7 M.A.No. 260/00113 of 2019 with O.A.No. 260/00060 of 2019 innocuously oblivious to such delay does not foster the cause of justice. On the contrary, it brings in injustice, for it is likely to affect others. Such delay may have impact on others' ripened rights and may unnecessarily drag others into litigation which in acceptable realm of probability, may have been treated to have attained finality. A court is not expected to give indulgence to such indolent persons - who compete with 'Kumbhakarna' or for that matter 'Rip Van Winkle'. In our considered opinion, such delay does not deserve any indulgence and on the said ground alone the writ court should have thrown the petition overboard at the very threshold."
In P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala & Anr., AIR 1998 SC 2276, the Hon'ble Apex Court while considering a case of condonation of delay of 565 days, wherein no explanation much less a reasonable or satisfactory explanation for condonation of delay had been given, held that "Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds."
In Brijesh Kumar vs. State of Haryana, 2014 (11) SCC 351, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that it is also a well settled principle of law that if some person has taken a relief approaching the Court just or immediately after the cause of action had arisen, other persons cannot take benefit thereof approaching the court at a belated stage for the reason that they cannot be 8 M.A.No. 260/00113 of 2019 with O.A.No. 260/00060 of 2019 permitted to take advantage of the order passed at the behest of some diligent person.
7. In view of the discussions made above and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court (supra), this Tribunal is not inclined to interfere at this belated stage since the applicant has failed to sufficiently explain the delay. Hence, the M.A. is dismissed. Resultantly, the O.A. 60/2019 also stands dismissed on the ground of limitation.
(SWARUP KUMAR MISHRA) (DEVENDRA CHAUDHRY) Member (Judicial) Member (Admn.) RK/PS