Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Poonam Sharma W/O Sh. Ashok Kumar Sharma vs Union Of India Through Its Secretary on 24 May, 2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 063/00043/2016
& M.A. No. 063/00052/2016
Date of filing: 16.05.2016
Order reserved on: 20.05.2016
Chandigarh, this the 24th day of May, 2016
CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL, MEMBER (J) &
HONBLE SMT. RAJWANT SANDHU, MEMBER (A)
Poonam Sharma w/o Sh. Ashok Kumar Sharma, aged 52 years, R/o Ekjyot Colony, Ram Nagar, Dharamshala, (H.P.) -(Group-C).
.APPLICANT
BY ADVOCATE: Ms. Shikha Chauhan
VERSUS
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Post and Communication, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi.
2. The Post Master General, Shimla, H.P.
3. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Shimla Division, Shimla, H.P.
4. Superintendent of Post Offices, Dharamshala Division, Dharamshala, H.P.
.RESPONDENTS
ORDER
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL, MEMBER(J):-
Applicant Smt. Poonam Sharma has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 claiming the following relief:-
I. That the impugned order issued by the respondent no. 4 vide AnnexureA-1 be quashed and set aside.
III. That the respondents be directed to release the due arrears and all consequential benefits of service in favour of the applicant in view of the orders passed by this Honble Court in O.A. No. 1402-HP-90 and O.A. No. 063/00162/2014 and also in O.A. No. 788/HR/2001 titled as Pardeep Jain and Others Vs. Union of India and others in its letter and spirit.
2. Case of the applicant is that she was appointed as Postal Assistant (Reserved Trained Pool)-in short, PA (RTP) on 29.10.1982 and was appointed as regular Postal Assistant (PA) on 12.2.1988 after having undergone requisite training. The applicant as PA (RTP) was being paid on hourly rate of Rs. 275/- per hour which was much less than the pay and allowances drawn by regular PAs. The applicant and others filed O.A. NO. 1402/HP/1990 before the Tribunal claiming payment at the same rates as being paid to regular PAs. The said O.A. was decided by the Tribunal vide order dated 1.1.1992 (Annexure A-2) granting the following relief:-
For the above mentioned reasons, we accept this Application and hold that the applicants are entitled to be paid the same salary and allowances as were being paid to the postal assistants appointed on regular basis, for the period during which the applicants had been working in the R.T.P. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to pay the arrears i.e. difference between the amount already paid to the applicants and the amount to the payment of which the applicants are entitled on the basis of this Judgment and also all other consequential benefits within a period of 3 months from today.
In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. The Tribunal has also given similar judgments in other cases of PAs (RTP). Specific reference has been made to judgment dated 31.10.2003 of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 788/HR/2001 Pardeep Jain and Others Vs. Union of India & Ors. as upheld by Honble High Court of Punjab & Haryana vide judgment dated 18.2.2014 in CWP No. 1466-CAT-2004 Union of India & Ors. Vs. Pradeep Jain & Ors. Order in the case of Pardeep Jain has already been implemented as per information dated 28.3.2016 (Annexure A-3) supplied under the Right to Information Act. The applicant and others made representation claiming similar benefit. The representation was not responded to by the respondents. The applicant and others filed O.A. No. 063/00162/2014- Sushil Kumar & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. which was disposed of alongwith other similar O.As vide order dated 24.12.2014 of the Tribunal (Annexure A-4), leading case being O.A. No. 060/01159/2014 titled Gurnam Singh & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors., thereby directing the respondents to consider representation of the applicants in accordance with law by passing speaking and reasoned order. It was also directed that while deciding the representation, order passed by the Tribunal in the case of Pardeep Jain (supra) also be taken into account. However, the respondents have rejected the claim of the applicant vide order dated 26.03.2015 (Annexure A-1) which is under challenge in the instant O.A.
3. The applicant has alleged that the impugned order is non speaking and unreasoned. Judgment (Annexure A-2) of the Tribunal in the case of Sunil Kumar (supra) and judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Pardeep Jain (supra) as upheld by the Honble High Court have not been followed while passing the impugned order (Annexure A-1). The applicant has claimed that she is entitled to be paid the same salary and allowances as were being paid to regular PAs, for the period during which the applicant worked as PA (RTP) and is entitled to all consequential benefits.
4. Alongwith O.A., the applicant has filed M.A. NO. 063/00052/2016 seeking condonation of delay of 1 month 22 days in filing the O.A. alleging that the delay occurred because the applicant had to consult other officials of the department in the State and also had to collect relevant documents and had to consult the lawyer.
5. We have heard counsel for the applicant on the question of admission of the O.A. and M.A. and carefully perused the case file.
6. Counsel for the applicant reiterated the version pleaded in the O.A. and M.A.
7. We have carefully considered the matter. As regards condonation of delay, small delay of 1 month 22 days could have been condoned. However, the delay is not of 1 month 22 days only, but is of almost 3 decades. The applicant is claiming benefit of her service rendered as PA (RTP) since 29.10.1982 till 12.2.1988. The instant O.A. has been filed on 16.5.2016. If limitation period is counted from 29.10.1982, the O.A. has been filed almost 34 years thereafter. If limitation period is counted from 12.2.1988 upto when the applicant is claiming the benefit, the O.A. has been filed more than 28 years thereafter. The applicant is thus raising a stale and dead claim in the O.A. Such stale and dead claim cannot be entertained. The O.A. is barred by delay and laches and should not be entertained. In this view, we are supported by judgment of Principal Bench of the Tribunal in 2016(1)(CAT) 684 - N. Chandrasekaran & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. and judgment of Calcutta High Court in 2016 (3) SLR 147 (Calcutta) - Banalata Ojha Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. Besides it, the O.A. is time barred as the delay is of almost 3 decades which cannot be condoned.
8. The matter may also be examined from another angle. Counsel for the applicant during the course of hearing submitted that the present applicant Poonam Sharma was also party to O.A. No. 1402/HP/1990 decided on 1.1.1992 by the Tribunal vide order (Annexure A-2). Consequently, the claim of the applicant stood decided by said order (Annexure A-2) and necessary benefit was allowed by the Tribunal. The applicant has not evem stated in the O.A. as to whether pursuant to order (Annexure A-2), the difference amount was paid to her or not and other consequential benefits were extended or not. Even if it was not done, the applicant should have sought execution of order (Annexure A-2) within limitation period. However, the applicant has no right to file successive O.As to claim the same relief again. The instant O.A. is thus also barred by resjudicata/constructive resjudicata.
9. It is also significant to notice that the applicant has not pleaded that she took any step after order dated 1.1.1992 (Annexure A-2) till filing of representation in the year 2014 and filing of O.A. No. 063/00162/2014 i.e. for more than 22 years. During this period of more than 2 decades, the applicant remained completely silent. She cannot be permitted to agitate her stale claim after 2/3 decades. The claim pertains to the period from 29.10.1982 till 12.2.1988 as already noticed. Order dated 24.12.2014 (Annexure A-4) passed in O.A. NO. 063/00162/2014 filed by the applicant and others alongwith other O.As does not extend the limitation period nor revives the stale and dead claim of the applicant. The said order was passed without even notice to the respondents by simply directing the respondents to decide the representation dated 30.5.2014 of the applicants. The said order has no bearing on merits including question of limitation.
10. For the reasons aforesaid, we find no merit in the instant O.A. which is accordingly dismissed in limine alongwith M.A. (JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL) MEMBER (J) (RAJWANT SANDHU) MEMBER (A) Dated: 24.05.2016 `SK 1 (O.A. No. 063/00043/2016 & M.A. No. 063/00052/2016)