Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh. Ishwar Singh vs Union Of India Through on 16 December, 2010
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.
OA-368/2010
MA-237/2010
New Delhi this the 16th day of December, 2010.
Honble Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J)
Honble Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A)
Sh. Ishwar Singh,
S/o Sh. Munshi,
Working as Fitter Grade-III(C&W),
Northern Railway, New Delhi. . Applicant
(through Sh. U. Srivastava, Advocate)
Versus
1. Union of India through
the General Manager,
Northern Railway,
Baroda House,
New Delhi.
2. The Divl. Railway Manager,
New Delhi, DRM Office Estate Entry
Road, Northern Railway,
New Delhi.
3. The Divl. Personnel Officer,
New Delhi, DRM Office Estate Entry
Road Northern Railway,
New Delhi.
4. The Sr. Section Engineer (C&W),
Northern Railway, New Delhi. .. Respondents
(through Sh. P.K. Yadav, Advocate)
O R D E R
Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A) The present application is for a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the applicant for promotion to the higher rank of Fitter Grade-II and Grade-I from the dates his juniors, namely, Sh. Ram Bheek and Sh. Daulat had been granted such promotion and to provide all consequential benefits arising therefrom.
2. The applicant was appointed as a Safaiwala on 24.09.1979. According to him Sh. Ram Bheek and Sh. Daulat were appointed as Safaiwala on 21.10.1979 and 05.11.1979 respectively. However, Sh. Ram Bheek and Sh. Daulat were promoted to the next grade of Helper Safaiwala carrying the pay scale of Rs. 800-1150/- on 20.01.1990, but the applicant got this promotion on 01.01.1994. Again, his two juniors got the next promotion to the rank of Fitter Grade-III in the year 1997 whereas the applicant made this grade on 20.04.1999.
2.1 The respondents issued a show cause notice on 06.09.1999 alleging erroneous promotion of the applicant to the grade of Fitter Grade-III and asking him to show cause why he should not be reverted to his substantive cadre. He gave his reply on 13.10.1999, yet no decision was taken on his show cause reply. Meanwhile, Sh. Ram Bheek and Sh. Daulat were promoted to the higher rank of Fitter Grade-II in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- on 12.12.2001.
3. The respondents again issued a notice on 26.11.2002 asking the applicant to show cause why he should not be reverted. He filed OA-3138/2002 challenging this show cause notice and the inaction of the respondents in not finally disposing of his earlier representation dated 13.10.1999. The O.A. was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to dispose of the representation of the applicant to the show cause notices dated 06.09.1999 and 12.10.1999 by passing a reasoned and speaking order. It is alleged by the applicant that meanwhile Sh. Ram Bheek and Sh. Daulat, his juniors, have since been promoted to the next higher rank of Fitter Grade-I.
4. The applicant filed a petition before the Labour Court alleging discrimination in the matter of promotion against him as compared to his juniors. The petition, which was numbered as LCA No. 47/2009 was withdrawn by him on 22.05.2009 on legal advice. He has filed this O.A. on the same issue as the subject matter related to his service conditions.
5. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the applicant stressed on the fact that the applicant was senior to Sh. Ram Bheek and Sh. Daulat at the time of his original appointment on the post of Safaiwala. His juniors have been given promotions at different points of time ignoring the legitimate claims of the applicant. As regards the plea of limitation raised by the respondents, the learned counsel replies by stating that the matter is one of recurring disadvantage suffered by the applicant; therefore, the cause of action should be deemed to be persisting even now and the O.A. could not be dismissed on the ground of limitation.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents points out that according to the admission of the applicant, Sh. Ram Bheek and Sh. Daulat got their promotion to the post of Helper Safaiwala on 20.01.1990 when applicant got his promotion on 01.01.1994. Further, these two employees got their next promotion in the year 1997 when the applicant was promoted to Fitter Grade-III rank on 20.04.1999. Meanwhile, they have got their promotions to Fitter Grade-II rank on 12.12.2001 and subsequently to Fitter Grade-I rank.
6.1. If at all there was any cause of action for the applicant, it arose on 20.01.1990 when allegedly his juniors got promotion. The applicant had acquiesced in the position not only at the time of their first promotion but in respect of their subsequent promotions all these years. He has filed this O.A. on 11.01.2010 after a delay of about 20 years. Learned counsel placed reliance on the ratio of the judgments of Honble Supreme Court in the cases Malcom Lawrence Cecil DSouza Vs. U.O.I. & Ors., AIR 1975 SC 1269 and B.S. Bajwa and Another Vs. State of Punjab and Others, (1998)2 SCC 523 to support his contention that claims of seniority over others cannot be entertained at an extremely belated stage. The observations of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Malcom Lawrence Cecil DSouza (supra) are as under:-
8..Satisfactory service conditions postulate that there should be no sense of uncertainty amongst public servants because of stale claims made after lapse of 14 or 15 years. It is essential that any one who feels aggrieved with an administrative decision affecting ones seniority should act with due diligence and promptitude and not sleep over the matter.. Their observations in the case of B.S. Bajwa and Another (supra) are extracted below:-
7. xxxxx The undisputed facts appearing from the record are alone sufficient to dismiss the writ petition on the ground of laches because the grievance made made by B.S. Bajwa and B.D. Gupta only in 1984 which was long after they had entered the department in 1971-72. During this entire period of more than a decade they were all along treated as junior to the other aforesaid persons and the rights inter se had crystalised which ought not to have been re-opened after the lapse of such a long period. At every stage the others were promoted before B.S. Bajwa and B.D.Gupta and this position was known to B.S. Bajwa and B.D. Gupta right from the beginning as found by the Division Bench itself. It is well settled that in service matters the question of seniority should not be reopened in such situations after the lapse of a reasonable period because that results in disturbing the settled position which is not justifiable. There was inordinate delay in the present case for making such a grievance. This alone was sufficient to decline interference under Article 226 and to reject the writ petition.
8. We find that the respondents had passed a detailed order on 10.10.2003 in pursuance of the direction of this Tribunal made on 25.08.2003 in OA No. 3138/2002 and decided not to interfere with the seniority list drawn in respect of the applicant. It was admitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that this order has not been challenged by the applicant. He is simply claiming seniority over Sh. Ram Beek and Sh. Daulat without challenging the seniority list in which these two employees were given higher seniority. As has been discussed, these two employees have been holding higher ranks compared to the applicant since 20.01.1990 and the applicant had never objected to this situation. It is settled law that an employee who sleeps over a matter for considerable length of time will not have a cause of action to unsettle the settled seniority.
9. In the circumstances, we find that this application has been filed after inordinate delay and considerable laches on the part of the applicant, which have not been explained. The mere excuse that these facts came to his notice later in point of time will not give him a justifiable ground for condonation of delay to interfere with a settled position. Further, the applicant has not challenged the reasoned order, which was passed by the respondent authorities following the direction of this Tribunal in OA-3138/2002. Even at that stage, the applicant did not claim a higher seniority position. His grievance was only about the proposed action of reversion. Even now, it is admitted that the applicant has not been reverted to a lower rank despite the order dated 10.10.2003 of the respondent authorities.
10. In the result, we are unable to allow the prayers of the applicant for retrospective promotion as the application has been filed long after the original cause of action arose and also on the ground that the applicant had acquiesced in the position all these years. The O.A. is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
(Dr. A.K. Mishra) (Mrs. Meera Chhibber) Member (A) Member (J) /vv/