Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Neelam Rani vs Govt. Of Nctd on 12 April, 2018
1 OA No.3551/2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI
O.A No.3551/2016
Reserved On:02.04.2018
Pronounced On:12.04.2018
Hon'ble Mr. V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J)
Hon'ble Ms. Nita Chowdhury, Member (A)
Dharampal 'Saini'
Pensioner-Bharat Sarkar Last employed in
C.W.C.
175-Shri Radha Kunj Vihar, North
S.D. Vidya School Sector-49,
Barola, Noida-20304. ...Applicant
(Applicant in person)
Versus
1. Secretary,
Ministry of Water Resources,
River Development & Ganga R.
& Power Sharm Shakti Bhawan,
Rafi Marg, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Chairman,
Central Water Commission & Central
Electricity Authority,
Sewa Bhawan,
R.K. Puram,
New Delhi-110066.
(By Advocate: Shri K.M. Singh)
ORDER
By Mr. V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J) The applicant, a retired UDC of the respondent- Central Water Commission (CWC), filed the instant OA seeking the following reliefs:-
2 OA No.3551/2016
"(i) To direct respondent No.1 to provide copy of the final orders passed by Hon'ble Prime Minister in the reliefs of appeal dated 26.11.2015 delivered at counter on 30.11.2015.
(ii) To adjudicate CAT (PB) jurisdiction, power and duty under Section 20 (1)(2)(b) & Section 23(1)(2) CAT Act and of respondents and unauthorised U.S/Ex. Engineer UYD CWC under Section 20 (1)(2)(a) Section 23(1)(2) CAT Act and under Articles 13(1)(2), 14, 16 & 21 or under Article 53 (1), 77(1)(2)(3) & Article 309 of the Constitution adopted by the Citizen of Bharat w.e.f. 26.01.1950 to conceal the essential documents from Public & CAT and to mislead to Hon'ble CAT (PB) by making false fabricated statement or under defected un-aimed, unreasoned All India Service Act, 1951 provided by Appointing Authority & P.M.- President Bharat Sarkar as alleged by them".
2. Heard the applicant in person and Shri K.M. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the pleadings on record.
3. On a specific question put to the applicant, he categorically stated that he mainly filed the OA being aggrieved with the action of the respondents in not granting promotion to the post of Assistant in the pay scale of Rs.425-800 revised to Rs.5500-9000.
4. Since the relief claimed in the OA does not correlate with the oral submission made by the applicant, we have carefully gone through the entire record of the OA. It is manifest from the record that the applicant is in the habit of filing cases after cases, though his claim was rejected time and again by various judicial fora. It is suffice if we quote the relevant paragraphs of one judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in a case filed by the applicant. In W.P. ( C) No.3885/2007 dated 13.07.2007, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed as under:-
"Petitioner has assailed the order and judgment dated 27.4.2006 passed in O.A. No 165 of 2005 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi vide which the petitioner's prayers for promotion to the post of Assistant in the pay scale of Rs.425-800 revised to Rs.5500-9000, disbursement of undisbursed pay and 3 OA No.3551/2016 payment of TA/DA as per CCS (Pension) Rules were dismissed by the learned Tribunal on the ground that the petitioner has not been able to prove from any factual record that he belongs to the Ministerial Cadre of CSCS while on the contrary, it has been conclusively proved that he belongs to Ministerial Cadre of Subordinate Office of CWC.
XXX XXX XXX
9. We have gone through the writ petition and the Tribunal's order. The learned Tribunal while rejecting the claim of the petitioner observed that:- "From the entire factual record, it is clear that he belongs to Ministerial Cadre of Subordinate Office of CWC. It is also a fact that he has agitated the issue several times in the past and he is trying to agitate the issue again which has finally been adjudicated upon by the Tribunal."
10. The basic claim of the petitioner is for the posting and promotion against the post of Assistant in the Head office of the Commission.
XXX XXX XXX
13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and given anxious consideration to the writ petition. The petitioner has challenged the Tribunal's Order on the ground that he has been denied promotion, which is his legitimate claim. On perusing the records, it is apparent that the petitioner has not even made a passing reference to the notification or the guideline or the rule that forms the basis of right claimed for. The present case is not one of denial of promotion on the ground of lack of promotional avenues but one of denial of promotion which the petitioner alleges to be his right which he has been denied. We are constrained to state that petitioner has failed to place on record any evidence to show that he belongs to CSCS Cadre, whereas the record and postings of the petitioner show that he belongs to the Ministerial Cadre of subordinate office of CWC. The promotion that the petitioner desires is applicable to officials belonging to CSC Service, a different cadre to which the petitioner does not belong. The petitioner is claiming a right to promotion for a post that is not applicable or assigned to his cadre. In such circumstances, it is only logical and rational on the part of respondents not to consider him for the said post as he is not eligible for it. In so far as payment of other dues and entitlements is concerned, the same was agitated in the OA of 1689 of 1994 and O.A.1859 of 1993, which were disposed of vide a common order dated 08.03.95, wherein the aforementioned issues pertaining were conclusively decided and since the said order has not been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition, the said order has attained finality and deserves no intervention of the writ court. We have observed that the petitioner had agitated the claim time and again without any success and all previous attempts had only gone in vain. This writ petition seems to be another desperate attempt to gain some mileage out of another round of litigation, albeit with no success.
14. In view of the foregoing discussion on the present writ petition, we find that there is no infirmity with the order of Tribunal, the said petition is devoid of merits and deserves no intervention of this Court.
15. With these observations, the present writ petition is dismissed".
5. In Dr. Buddhi Kota Subbarao Vs. K. Parasaran AIR 1996 SC 2687 it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court as under:-
"No litigant has a right to unlimited drought on the court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner as he wishes - Easy access to justice should not be misused as a licence to 4 OA No.3551/2016 file mis-conceived or frivolous petitions".
Similarly in Sabia Khan Vs. State of U.P. AIR 1999 SC 2284 it was held by the Apex Court as under:-
"4. After hearing Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, it is obvious that the petition is mis-conceived and based on a total mis- conception. It is an obvious attempt to question the correctness of the orders of this Court through a writ petition under Article 32, which is not permissible. The objection with regard to the office report is also not tenable. Filing of such a petition is an abuse of the process of the Court and waste of the time of the Court. We do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed with costs, assessed at Rs. 10,000/-".
Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abdul Rahman Vs. Prasony Bain (2003) 1 SCC 488 held as under:-
"32. In the aforementioned situation, in our opinion, the appellant must be held to have taken recourse to abuse of process of court underlying the principle that the litigation should be allowed to attain finality in public interest. Although the concept of issues estoppel or estoppel by records are distinct and separate from the concept of abuse of process in public interest, the court may refuse the plaintiff from pursuing his remedy in a court of law. See Johnson v. Gore Wood & Co. [(2002) 2 AC 1.] Similarly, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in H.S. Bedi Vs. National Highway Authority of India, 2016 (155) DRJ 259, held as under:-
"36. The party not approaching the court with clean hands would be liable to be non-suited and such party, who has also succeeded in polluting the stream of justice by making patently false statements, cannot claim relief, especially under Article 136 of the Constitution. While approaching the court, a litigant must state correct facts and come with clean hands. Where such statement of facts is based on some information, the source of such information must also be disclosed. Totally misconceived petition amounts to an abuse of process of court and such a litigant is not required to be dealt with lightly, as a petition containing misleading and inaccurate statement, if filed, to achieve an ulterior purpose amounts to an abuse of process of court. A litigant is bound to make "full and true disclosure of facts"....................
XXX XXX XXX
17. This Court hopes that the Courts below shall invoke Section 209 of the Indian Penal Code in appropriate cases to prevent the abuse of process of law, secure the ends of justice, keep the path of justice clear of obstructions and give effect to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal (supra), S.P. Chengalvaraya Naida v. Jagannath (supra), Dalip Singh v. State of U.P.(supra), Ramrameshwari Devi v. Nirmala Devi (supra), Maria 5 OA No.3551/2016 Margarida Sequeria Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack de Sequeria (supra), Kishore Samrite v. State of Uttar Pradesh (supra) and Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India (supra).
Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Subrata Roy Sahara Vs. Union of India (2014) 8 SCC 470 held as under:-
"191. The Indian judicial system is grossly afflicted, with frivolous litigation. Ways and means need to be evolved, to deter litigants from their compulsive obsession, towards senseless and ill-considered claims. One needs to keep in mind, that in the process of litigation, there is an innocent sufferer on the other side, of every irresponsible and senseless claim. He suffers long drawn anxious periods of nervousness and restlessness, whilst the litigation is pending, without any fault on his part. He pays for the litigation, from out of his savings (or out of his borrowings), worrying that the other side may trick him into defeat, for no fault of his. He spends invaluable time briefing counsel and preparing them for his claim. Time which he should have spent at work, or with his family, is lost, for no fault of his. Should a litigant not be compensated for, what he has lost, for no fault? The suggestion to the legislature is, that a litigant who has succeeded, must be compensated by the one, who has lost. The suggestion to the legislature is to formulate a mechanism, that anyone who initiates and continues a litigation senselessly, pays for the same. It is suggested that the legislature should consider the introduction of a "Code of Compulsory Costs".
6. The present OA is another misconceived and frivolous petition filed by the applicant for the same reliefs, which were already adjudicated and rejected. The ambiguous and frivolous prayer in the OA does not deserve any consideration on the face of the facts on record.
7. In the circumstances and for the aforesaid reasons, the OA is dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) payable to the Delhi Legal Services Authority within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(NITA CHOWDHURY) (V. AJAY KUMAR) Member (A) Member (J) RKS