Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
B J Dhananjaya vs Environment And Forest on 27 September, 2022
1 OA No.400/2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00
NO.170/00400/2022
DAY, DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
TUESDAY,
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S SUJATHA ...MEMBER(J)
HON'BLE MR.RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA ...MEMBER(A)
1. Shri B.J.Dhananjaya,
S/o B.S.Jayanna,
Aged about 38 years,
Working as Technician,
Institute of Wood Science Technology,
18th Cross, Malleshwaram,
Bangalore - 560 003.
2. Sri L.Manjunatha,
S/o Sri T.Lankappa,
Aged about 37 years,
R/at C/o Chandramma, F.D.A.,
C.D.P.O. Office,
Nelamangala - 562 123,
Bangalore Rural District,
Working as Technician,
Institute of Wood Science Technology,
18th Cross, Malleshwaram,
Bangalore - 560 003. .... Applicants
(ByAdvocate
ByAdvocate Shri S.Maruthi )
Vs.
2 OA No.400/2022
1. The Secretary,
Ministry of Environment & Forests,
Government of India, Pariyavarna Bhavan,
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New
ew Delhi - 110 003.
2. The Secretary,
Department of Expenditure,
Ministry of Finance,
North Block,
Lokanayak Bhavan,
New Delhi.
3. The Secretary,
Indian Council of Forest Research and Education,
P.O. New Forest,
Dehradun
Dehradun-248 006.
4. The Director General ,
Indian Council of Forest Research Education,
P.O. New Forest,
Dehradun - 248006
5. The Director,
Institute of Wood Science & Technology,
Malleshwaram,
Bangalore -560 018. ...Respondents
3 OA No.400/2022
O R D E R (ORAL
ORAL)
Per: Justice S.Sujatha ...........Member(J)
The applicants have challenged the order No.1 No.1-15/2016- 2017/IWST/E tt.(DPC)/1192 dated 04.07.2017 and No.63 2017/IWST/Estt.(DPC)/1192 No.63-19/2017- .2017 passed by the 5th and 3rd Respondent ICFRE(TSR) dated 22.09.2017 respectively (Annexure A6 and Annexure A8 re respectively), inter alia seeking a direction to the respondents to adjust or fit the applicants to the post of Technical Assistant/ Senior Technical Assista Assistant as per the order dated 04.07.2017 by considering the representations submitted by them.
2. The applicants were selected and appointed as Technical Assistants in the Institute of Wood Science Technology (IWST) in the pay scale of Rs.5200-20200 Rs.5200 with Grade pay of Rs.2000/ Rs.2000/- as per the order dated 31.03.2015 issued by the 3rd Respondent, pursuant to the employment notification dated 30.11.2012 issued by the IIWST. IWST by an order dated 04.07.2017 04.07.2017 changed the designations oof all Technical Assistants Gr.C r.C as Technician. Accordingly, the name of the applicant no.1 was figured at Sl.No.6 and of the second applicant at Sl.No.2. As per the order dated 04.07.2017, the designation of the applicants along with others has been changed as Technician as per IICFRE Technical 4 OA No.400/2022 Service Rules, 2013. Further, on the representation of Technician for (Category-II), the 3rd consideration to the post of Technical Assistant (Category Respondent vide letter dated 22.09.2017 addressed to the 5th Respondent stated that existed Technical Technical Officials of ICFRE were considered for induction into technical services as per the provision of Appendix XII of TSR-2013 TSR and the concerned staff cannot be inducted in higher scale as requested by them beyond the scope of Rules.
3. Being aggrieved by these orders dated 04.07.2017 (Annexure A6 and dated 22.09.2017 (Annexure A8), the the applicant applicants are before this Tribunal.
4. The learned Counsel, Shri S. Maruthi appearing for the applicants contended that the applicants were appointed tto the post of Technical Assistant as per the notification dated 30.11.2012, much prior to 2013 Rules coming into force. The respondents on 04.07.2017 had implemented the recommendation of Departmental Promotion Committee dated 20.06.2017 and following the research/technical Officials of IWST adjusted/Fitted into the new Technical posts as per the Technical echnical Service Rules, 20133 of ICFRE, with respect to one Smt.Mamatha Ravindra, Sl.No.3 and similarly to the persons figured at Sl.No.12 and 13, but the same benefit has been denied to the appl applicants, 5 OA No.400/2022 on the other hand, the applicants were redesignated to lower post. Their representations have not been favourably considered by the respondents. On these grounds, learned Counsel prayed for quashing the impugned gned orders at Annexure A6 and A8.
5. We have carefully considered the submission submissions made by the learned Counsel for the applicants and perused the material on record.
6. At the outset, the application deserve deserves to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches.
la . Indisputedly, the impugned orders dated 04.07.2017 and 27.09.2017 are challenged by the applicants in the year 2022. Section 20(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (Act for short) stipulates the period of limitation for presenting the application before the Tribunal. In terms of 21(1)(a) of Act, where the final order is made in connection with the grievance unless the application is made, within one year from the date on whic which such final order has been made, no application shall be admitted. No doubt Sub Sub-section (3) of Section 21 of the Act provides for condoning the delay subject to sufficient cause satisfactorily shown by the applicant for the delay caused. Accordingly, MA No.335/2022 has been filed by the applicant to condone the delay of 1535 days in filing the original application. 6 OA No.400/2022
7. We have perused the affidavit filed by the applicants along with the said application. The said affidavit is bald and vague which ca cannot be construed as satisfactory explanation for condoning the inordinate delay of 1535 days.
days. Moreover the reasons for delay caused certainly may not be the same for two applicants. The affidavit is filed by the first applicant even on behalf of the second second applicant. The laxity on the part of the applicants cannot be condoned since the courts can comee to the rescue of the litigant who is vigilant about his rights and not to the person/persons who sleeps over the matter and raise raises from the slumber to suit his convenience. It is pertinent to note that any revision in promotion at this juncture would disturb the entire seniority list adversely affecting the rights of the other employees, hence we are not inclined to entertain the present Original App Application.
8. Even on the ground of parity, parity no application could be held to be maintainable at this length of time, as the order referred to by the applicants is dated 04.07.2017 (Annexure A7). Moreover, the said order was issued based on the options given given by the Research/Technical Officials of IWST to the Technical Service Rules, ICFRE and on the recommendations of the DPC.
7 OA No.400/2022
9. For the reasons discussed above, MA No.335/2022 for Condonation for delay as well as OA stands rejected. No order as to costs.
(RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA) (JUSTICE S.SUJATHA)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER(J)
sd.