Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
- vs - on 25 July, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench OA No.2653/2011 New Delhi this the ---25th day of July, 2011. Honble Mr. M.L. Chauhan, Member (J) Honble Mr. A.K. Jain, Member (A) Chet Ram, S/o Shri Raghubir Singh, Keyman, Unit No.19, Under Sr. Section Engineer ( P. Way), Northern Railway, Faridabad Old Railway Station (Haryana). (By Advocate Shri S.P. Sethi) -Versus- 1. Union of India through the General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi. 2. General Manager, North Central Railway, Headquarters Office, Allahabad. 3. The Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, State Entry Road, New Delhi-110055. 4. The Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Central Railway, Near Railway Station, Agra Cantt. -Respondents O R D E R (ORAL) Mr. M.L. Chauhan, Member (J):
Applicant has filed this OA, thereby praying for the following reliefs:
i) Call for the records of the case relating to promotion of the applicant in the year 2001 and that of his juniors as well as seniority list of relevant units under the jurisdiction of Faridabad Engineering department.
ii) direct the respondents to promote the applicant on the basis of the trade test passed in year 2001 equivalent to the juniors of the applicant as keyman.
iii) direct the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for promotion as Mate from the date of his juniors.
iv) direct the respondent to fix/refix the pay of the applicant equivalent to his juniors by granting promotion as Key man from the date of his juniors and consequently promote as Mate from the date of his juniors.
v) direct the respondents to invoke the provisions of Rule 228 (to rectify the errors) as the applicant has been ignored as provided in Indian Railway Establishment Manual.
vi) direct the respondents to pay the cost of litigation to the applicant.
vii) Pass any other order or direction which the Honble Tribunal thinks fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of case, including grant of benefits of ACP/MACPs.
2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed as Gangman under PWI Palwal (CPWI Faridabad) on 23.06.1977. Applicant passed the trade test for the post of Keyman in the year 2001 and consequently vide Office Order No.184/2001 dated 22/28.02.2001 (Annexure A-3) he was posted under Senior Section Engineer (P. Way) in Unit No.21 as Keyman. However, applicant never joined pursuant to the said order. From the material placed on record it is also evident that the applicant resumed his duty in the Northern Railway on 1.4.2003 on account of Re-organization of Zonal Railway. Since the applicant had not joined on the post of Keyman pursuant to order dated 22/28.02.2001 (Annexure A-3) persons junior to applicant who had joined as Keyman were further promoted to the post of Mate in the year 2007. However, applicant was again subjected to a trade test for the post of Keyman in the year 2007 by the Northern Railway on account of his joining in the Northern Railway pursuant to creation of new Zones and his having exercised option for his absorption/transfer in the Northern Railway. It is on the basis of these facts applicant has filed this OA. Thereafter applicant sought certain information under Right to Information Act, 2005 and vide letter dated April, 2011 (Annexure A-1) he was informed that the test of Keyman which was held on 8.1.2001 on that date you were working in Central Railway. You have resumed Northern Railway on 1.4.2003 thus the eligible candidates were called for trade test for the post of Keyman. Thereafter applicant issued a legal notice dated 15.06.2011 (Annexure A-6). Since no response was received from respondents, applicant has filed this OA for the aforesaid reliefs.
3. We have heard the learned counsel of the applicant at the admission stage. We are of the view that applicant is not entitled to any relief for more than one reason. Admittedly, applicant qualified the trade test for the post of Keyman held on 8.1.2001 and pursuant to such passing of the trade test applicant was placed under Senior Section Engineer (P. Way) in Unit No.21 vide order No.184/2001 dated 22/28.2.2001, where he has not joined on the post of Keyman. Subsequently, applicant was transferred from his parent organization, i.e., Central Railway to another Zone, namely Northern Railway where he resumed his duty on 1.4.2003. Since applicant had qualified the trade test when he was working in Central Railway, after his resumption of duty in Northern Railway he was again asked to pass the trade test, which he passed and was subsequently posted as Keyman w.e.f. 20.07.2007. Now the applicant has prayed that respondents may be directed to promote the him from the year 2001 when his junior persons were promoted and to grant him seniority from the relevant date. Not only that, applicant has further prayed that respondents should also consider the case of applicant for promotion as Mate from the date his juniors have been promoted and re-fix his seniority. We are of the firm view that the relief prayed for by the applicant cannot be granted at this stage, as the cause of action in favour of applicant had arisen in the year 2001 and thereafter in the year 2007 also when he was promoted to the post of Keyman in Northern Railway. This OA has been filed on 20.07.2011. It may be stated here that certain rights had accrued in favour of persons who had been promoted as Keyman during the intervening period w.e.f. 22/28.2.2001 and 20.08.2007. Not only that, the so called junior persons had further been promoted to the posts Keyman. Applicant had not challenged any order whereby the so called junior persons were promoted as Mate and also other orders whereby so called junior persons had been assigned seniority in the cadre of Keyman as well as on the posts of Mate. Not only that, so called junior persons, who had been promoted during the aforesaid intervening period have not been impleaded as party respondents in this OA. Thus, according to us, no relief can be granted to the applicant at this belated stage.
4. It may be stated here that the applicant in para-3 of the OA has stated that this Application is filed within the period of limitation prescribed under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. As already stated above, applicant had raised his grievance regarding his promotion since 2001, the cause of action had arisen in that year. In terms of the provisions contained in Sections 20 and 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 the OA has to be filed within a period of one year. Applicant has not placed on record any representation to suggest that he has made a representation to the authorities at the relevant time. Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Chand Sharma v. Udham Singh Kamal & Others, 2000 SCC (L&S) 53 that where the application for condonation of delay in filing the OA has not been filed and delay is not explained, neither OA can be admitted and entertained, nor delay condoned. Further the Apex Court in the case of D.C.S. Negi v. Union of India & Ors., Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.7956/2011, has held that provisions of Sections 20 and 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 regarding limitation cannot be overlooked and it is the duty of the Tribunal to consider the point of limitation, even if the plea of limitation has not been raised by the respondents in their reply-affidavit and the point of limitation has to be taken into consideration at the first instance before hearing the matter on merits.
5. As already stated above, since applicant has not challenged the validity of the order, but the present OA has been filed simply on the basis of the information received under the Right to Information Act, 2005, which cannot be said to be an order, as such validity of any adverse order, of which applicant is aggrieved, cannot be gone into. This is one of the reasons why applicant cannot be granted any relief.
6. Thus, viewing the matter from any angle, we are of the view that the present OA is bereft of merit, which is accordingly dismissed, at the admission stage itself, without even issuing notice to the respondents. No costs.
(A.K. Jain) (M.L. Chauhan) Member (A) Member (J) San.