Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
Basant Akumar Routray vs D/O Post on 27 March, 2019
afRenrigs er } es CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH Present: Hon'ble Mr. Gokul Chandra Pati, Member (A} Hon'ble Mr.Swarup Kumar Mishra, Member {J} * QA Ne. 505 of 2018 - Muralidhara Rout, aged about 72 years, S/o Late Managobinda rout, R/o Village At{/PO ~ Singhpur, PS -- Bungharpur, Dist. ~ Jafpur.
« OA Ne. 224 of 2016 - Golak Bihari Samal, aged about 55 years, S/o Nanda Kishore Samal, At ~ Narssinghapar (Dihapara}, PO - Narasinghapur, PS ~ Bettamundai, Dist. - Kendrapara. s OANo. 524 0f 2018 ~- Sribetsa nayak, aged about S67 veers, S/o Late Khageswar mayak, Rfo At/PQ ~ Garu, PS ~ Bari, Remchandrapur, Dist. ~ Jagour. * OA No. 536 of 2015 - Dhrubs Charan Sethy, ausd about SY years, Sia Late Fagu Sethy, Ryo Villages/PO/PS -- Balicharsirapur, Dist. -- Jahpur.
* OANo. S90 of 2018 ~ Gopinath Mallick, aged about 64 years, S/o Late Pitambar Mallick, Ryo At ~ Chaurnubin, PO ~ meslusn, PS -- Ghasipura, Dist. ~ eonphar.
" QA No. 672 of O15 - Prasanta Kumar Reutray, awed about 7O years, S/o Late Gokhasi Charan Routray, R/a At/PO- Sipura, Ps ~ Balichandrapur, Dist. ~ Cuttack.
® OA Ne. 673 of ZOIS- Raghunath Dalai, aged about 88 years, B/a Late Satrughna Dalai, B/o Village -~ Ramechandrapur, PO - Chayanpal, PS ~ Mahange, Dist. ~ Cuttack, * OA Na. S39 of 2015 - Krudibasa Behera, aged abut O6 years, Dusashana Behera, Ai ~ Ramnagar patna, PO ~ Nagar, Thakurpaina, Dist. - kendrapara, working a Postal Assistant (PA} in Rendrapara head Post Ofice, Dist. - Rendrapara.
* GANo. 947 of 2015 - Prafiile Chandra Pramanik, aged about 54 years, S/o Late manohar Paramanik, At/PO ~ Sevar Bank, PS -- Mahahkalapara, Dist. Nendrapara, working as Postal Assistant {PA}, Marshaghai Sub Post Office, Ehst. Rerulrapara.
oo Applicgnt VERSUS i. Union of India represented by Director General of Post, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi ~ 1io001.
2. Chief Postmaster General, Odisha Circle, Bhubeneewar FSLOGL.
3. Assistant Director (Staff, Ofo Chief Post Master General, QR Odisha Circle, Bhubaneswar ~ O1.
4. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Suttack ~ 7538001, $.
3= $ < OA No. S17 of QOIG~ Pitabas Mishra, aged about BS ve. i gears, Sfa Late Deyanidhi Mishra, presently working as Deputy Post Master, : Ree: age Head Post Office, Athagarh, Dist. fPO Neva Basar, PS - Chanliagania, ay by OA Ne. $40 of 2OIS- Pramod Kumar Swain, aged alvyut S2 years, Sia Late i.
Braundaban Swain, presently workinNeE as Sub Fost Maater, Titan Sub Office, Jagetsingper, Rio Villate - Badapal, PO ~ Pankapal, RPS ~ Kojanga, Dist. ~ dagatsinghpur.
YERSUS Usion of india represented by IMrecter General af Post, Dak Bhawan, New Delit ~ 120004.
ohier Postmaster General, Odisha Circle, Bhubaneswar ~ FSI.
Assistant Director Biel, Cidlisha Circle, Bhubans:
The Superintendent af Bost Offices, Chuttack South Division, Cuttack.
OA Ne. S80 of ZOLS~ Gopi raat Malice, aged shout & years, Sioa Late Pir annat Matick, Réo At- Chane yuhin, PO) ~ madaan, % "
BR HG veipura , Tist. ~ Reonjhar. VERSUS Unien of india rior red by Director General of Post, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi = T2Q00T, Chief Postmaster General, Odisha Circle, Shivhaneswar Agaistant EHreeter (tall, Q/o Chie! Post Master General, Odisha Circle, Bhubaneswar 0 A. Phe Superinterslest af Post (Bees, Neonihar Division, POs Dist. ~ Keanfhar ey RESIN ES Por the applicant - Mr.8.Patra- 1, counsel! For the Heard & reserved' on: S.3.2019 respondents ¢ Mr A. Br radhan cose! on No BOS /ZOTR) DRM: atic, counsel (OA No. ges! nad oounsel (A Na.git fat oU8} mia, course! (OA No.s ZOES nity, con pes {GA Ne. a6 P2014, On No. 330 WOPSS Myr POR Mohanty, eee HA NaS OA No. GFS/R01S, OA Nosh 301 5) Mite Tena, coumee! (OA Ne? S 201) Afr. Bi. Swaln, counsel (4 No. Gao': IES) Oy é P20} ES 3 s Oo RF BP _UE R Per Mr.Golui Chandra Pati, Member {A} The dieputes and issucs in these OAs are common and similar and these pertain to the claim for antedating of the promotion of the applicants on the hasis of the date prametion allowed to their funiers in pursuance to the orders dated 25.7.2008 of the Caloutta Bench of CAT in OA No. 1196/2004 along with a bunch af OAs with similar facts/disputes, which wae upheld subsequently in Hon Die High Court and Hon'tde Apex Court. Hence, these OAs were taken up for conatierstion and heard jointly sith the consent of the bearresd counsel for both the sides. These QAs are being dispased of by this commen order far which the OA Ne. 505 of 2018 is taken as the leading case. i Before examining the leading case we hake note of the brief facts af other OAs dptuesesd as under :OA S24 /2016
In this O4 the applicant had retired fram service an S31. 10.2008 ard he had submitted the representation dated S.8.201S for extending the benelits of y promotion fram the date from which his juniors have been allowed viele order dated 4.2.2018 (Annexure A/1) passe by the respondents in pursuance to the arder dated 23.7. 2008 of the Tritnmal in OA No, Li86/2004. The applicant | is aggrieved since the representation dated S.S2015 was rejected by the respondents, since the applicant wes not a party te the OA No. 1196/2004, OA SIF / 2016 In the case the applicant had made a representation dated 5. 10.2015 for extending the benefits of the promotion from the date from which his juniors have been allowed as per the judgment dated 23.7.2008 of the Tribunal in OA 1296/2004. He was in service when the representation was eubrnitted and he ig aggrieved since the resporelenta have rejected his representation on the ground that the benefit allowed to the employees in OA No. 1108/2004 and ather OAs are applicable to the parties in thase GAs anh. OA S24/2015 Reiners In this case the applicant wha retired from service in the year 2{)8, claims perity with his juniors a per the order dated 23.7.2008 in OA 1196/2004 which has been implemented by the respondents vice order dated 4$,.2.26158. He had submitted his represemtation dated 25.2.2015 for the same rder dated 4.2.2615 and us iF henefit as his funiors were getting vide EAM EEE ATL I CL ATE EEL E LL:
sp pT 4 representation has been rejected by the respondents on the grvund that the $4] benefits as per order of the Tribunal are agile sable to the parties in those OAs ¥ oniy.
OA 8836/2015 in this case the applicant's representation dated 212.2018 for parity with his juniors in pursuance of the order dated 24.7 2008 of the Tribanal in GA 1196/2004, has besn rejected by the respondents on the ground that the rearemdents have taken a stand that the benefits granted by the Tribunal oan be allowed ta the parties in those OAs only. In tis case the applicant retired fram service on GO.4.9005 as siete in his representation at page 15 of the OA. OA S86/2015 in this case the applicant had submitted representation dated 1Y 2.2015 for promotion at par with his juniors as per the order dated 42.2015 which was iseued after passing of che order dated 29.7. 2008 in OA PTGS 2008. As stated in his representation at Annexure 4/4, the applicant rehired from service om 31.1. 2011. The representation has been rejected by the respandenta on the samie grounds asin the QA Ne. S86 /2078,. OA 6FS/2018 In this ease the applheant who retired fram. service om 38.2.2005, submitted the representation dated 23.2.2018 which has been rejected by the reaporidents vide ander dated L&/23 3. S015 iAnnesure Aydi om the ground that the order of CAT in GA No. L1S8s8004 and other OAS are ¢ 7 cable aniy to His represemiatian was to avail the benefit at par with Bie jumiors which was given as per the onier af this Tribunal dated 2G.) 2008 In GA TiSe/ 2004 Uke in other QAs.
OA 6873/2015 ee reeea ae ean ohne nee eee in this case the applicant has fled a representation dated 212.2018 {Annexure A/S) requesting for pramotion at par with Sis funiars as per order dated 42.2075. The representation waa rejected om the same ground as in GA Ne OF 2/2018. The applicant had estired from service on 31 2 20QF. OS 8939/2018 in ts case the applicant submitted regresentation dated [29 2.2018 for promotion at par with bis fhuaiars as per the order dated 23.7. 2008 of the RN ' Tekunel in OA 1166/2004. The apphcant has net retired at the time of snhadaesion of the representation. However, 1 deteaiis of the furore against whor he seeks parity have heen mentioned in his representation. The representation wae rejected by the respondents on the same ground as in OA No. &F 2/2015.OA 940/2015
in this case the applicant submitted his representation dated 20.3.2015 {Annexure A/S) and he was in service at the time of submission of the representation, but the details of the juniors with whom he is seeking parky have not been furnished in the representation seeking retrogpective promotion at par with his funiors. The represeniation has also beer ejected by the respondents on the same ground as in OA No. 672/201 3. OA G41 {2015 in this case the applicant has fled representation dated 1B.2.2018 {Annexure A/3} when he was all in service claiming parity with his juniors without furnisiing any details of the puniors with whem he is seeking parity. OA No. 505 of 2018 in this case, the applicant had filed representation dated FA SOTS jAnnerure A/a} for ante dating his promotion at par with his pumiors aril the applicant had retired from gervies w.et, 20.11.2006. GA No. 505 of 2018
3. The applicant has ed QA No, S05 / 2018 seeking the following reliels:- "fa\ The order did. 247 IO1S under Armexure A/G be quashesl. {b) The respondents be directed to reat promotion of the applicant to L&G as regular promotion, to consider the case of the applicant for promotion to next higher grade Le, HSG-H after eight years in Lag and to HSG-1 after three years senace in HSG-T with all other bereits.
ic} = Pass any other order/arders as woul { be deemed just and preper."
aL In this case, the brief facts are that applicunt joined the service intially as LOC ISBCD) under the respondents on 19.49.1968 and he was promoted es URC on 2.7. 1801. The post af UDC was subssquently ge-clesigmaiond 88 PAISBCD). The applicant was promoted under TBOP scherne on 17.1892 {Anm-Af i} and got higher scale under the BCR scheme on 16.12.1004 [Ann A/Q). Affer retirement ef the applioant or 80.21 2006, some of his hamiars were Labelle allowed the benefit af promotion fom mack date vide order date? 4.9303 {Aren.-A/S}, When the applicant knew about the order dated 4.3.9078 Re submitted a representation dated 79.2015 (Annexare Af 4} by speed post to the respondents to consider his nase hy retrospective promotion te NSH and HSG-I at par with the JUBiors. 10 more employees were aise given the bennett vide anler dated $3,2.2078 (Amn oASS! after which, the apphcanr represented again on 14.85.2018 ts consider his case. This representation has heen rejected ¢ by the respondents side order dated 24. 7.20738 iAnnemure-A/Al which is impsagmned in this OA main ty on te Sellowing grounds:
{} The applicant came to know akout the decision In the GAs flea by his juniors and the applicant and came to know about it when his juntors were given the benefit wee order dated TROLS (Anmexure-4/ 3) and subec equently vide order dated 88.9.2078 iAnmexure ASS}, Thereafter, he Aled ss presentations which were rejected vide order at Annexure A/A, ik) The principle in this case was dexided by the judement of Madms Bench of GAT which was upheld in Hon 'his High Court and Hon'ble Apes Court. Hence, the applicant should also have been allewed the aame benefit which was admittedly allowed to his POSS, & The respondents' counter fo che ¢ GA highlighted phe following main polrrs for opposing the OA :
fl The applicant wes Promoted as per the modified RoR scheme woe. LiO ToS AST and wet SF, (G98 E42) at par with hie funinrs bi} Ing similar case, the respondents had challenged the order of SAT in OS No, S18) S018 in WEIS) Na. POS, OLS » PORG, FOS2 and TERS af dey: IS in whik Hon'hle High Court allowed Uhe writ petition and set aside 4 He arder of the Tribunal vide the dadgment dated 24.7 2078 : inbuieniela) ih Benes, the Present OA has no meri, Qh} The applicant has never claimed the benefit as claimed naw when the mee Of action aroge in the Year S005 or in 2008 and preferred & PaTMaIn alleyrt without approaching the authorities, They can be ty ~ nated as fence-gitters. for %y with as per the Judgment cited at Ann. Réi, they are not esuded gor the benefits at par with others who heel agitated the matter in the Court, fv} The case af the applicant has hees duly considersd and re sineiter], ey We heard learned o seis af both the sides, Phe 4 apaane'y counsel hag also Hied the written 8 submissions nclesing fallowing fudgments in suppert a {i} State of U.P. ~ws- Arabinda Kumar Srivastay & Ots. faois(i} sce
247)
(i) K.LShephard & Ors. ~vs- Union of India & Ors, [AIR 1986 8C SBE} {iii} Inderpal yadav & Ore. ~vs- Union of India & Ors. {1985 (2) Sec 64s} iv} M.S.Ranjeet Construction ~vs. State of Orissa & Ors. f2018 {1} TLR.
CUT 488} {vy} M.P.Singh Bargoti -vs- State of MP. & Anr, [2014(15) SCC $83] ¥, IC is stated in the written submissions filed by the applicant's counsel that the reas for rejection of the claim of the applicant as stated in the counter ie thet it was a belated claim. But this was not the reason for rejection as mentioned in order dated 24.7.2018 {Annexure-A/S} while rejecting his representation, The order dated 24.7.2618 fs impugned in this OA and hence ey.
this cannot be taken as a reason for rejecting the clair in the light of the judgment in the case of M.S. Ranjeet Construction (supra). It is also argued on behalf of the applicant that the cause of action for the applicant arose for the first time when his fanicrs were allowed the benefits of retrospective prometion wide order dated 4.22015 {4/3} and allowing only the benefits on notional basis will not affect others. It is also submitted that it is a continuing cause of gotion as it affected the salary of the applicant. Hf the benefits are given fo the fumors of a retired official w.e.f a date prior to the date of retirement, then the case of Une serdar retired official cannot be ignored as per the fadgment in the cease of M.P. Singh Bargoti (eapral. [ft is argued that these submissions were not plawed before Hon'ble High Court for consileration while passing the order Gated 29.7 2018 {R/ 1} and hence, ee order dated 24.7. 2018 (Annexure RY Y carmot be said ag preoerent under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. &. fn the case of KL, Shephard (supray cited by the applicant's counsel, the issue was exchision of seme employees in amalgamation scheme of a bank with another bank. It was held that since the draft scheme did not inchide the fact thal certain group af employees would be excluded fram amalgamation and no opportunity of hearing was given to the affected employees, the principles of natural fusticg was not followed particularly when if affected the Hyellhood of the excluded employees and hence, they are entitled to be taken over and given employment. The facts in the cited case are quite different from the present QA and hence, are distinguishable. In the case of Inder Pal Yadav feupre) the dispute was the cut off date specified in the Railway Board echerne for regularization of casual labourers working in railway projects. it was held that these who could mot come to the court should not be a comparative disadvantage in the matter relating to regularisation of servins, In the present case the clam does not pertain to service regularization or fivelihocd and Pee ee LUM ee ete tte o% or 2 hence, the cited case is factually distinguishable from the facts of the present OA.
g. In the case af M/S Ranjeet Coneatriction (supra), the dispute rieted to cancellation of Sie tender for reason whith was mentioned ay Ure counter and setitioner. Hence, auch a rasen was not found to br saccepia} he S has stated in his written submission that the reason of helated submission of the claim is mentioned In tee counter and not communicated in the refection order, Hence, applying the ratio of the judgment in M/S Ranjeet Construction (supra), i is argued on behalf at the applicant that such « reason is not avceptable. We are unable to accept such contention, Mince the Tribune! is required to examine the question af delay or Kmitation in raising the claim in accerdance with the provisions of the section a} of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 98S even if the question of delay ie not raised by the respondents and Wf is Reind that the claim has not been raised within the time as require] under law, then it is Hable to be rajected umless the Me ia sstion of delay wIf have to bs ts have not nalsed it in the counter or tre rele M/S Rarmmeet Construntion faupre), the roasan for rejection: Was NOt a siahitery ~: : x condition Ue the question of Krmitation ureler Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunale Act, 2985.
iO. Tf the reason is a statutory recuirement like delay or Imitation, not ¥y aes ¥ communicating & in the rejection order will not be a bar for the Tabunal not to coneider such a reason which is a statutory requirement. This is i view of the jurlgment af Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. MLK, Sarkar, (2010) 2 SCC SO in which it was held as wnder-
"The ceder of Gre Teininal allowing the first aggllcation af respondent aithmrt examining the nucrits, cowl directing appellants to consider ius representation hae given Hse to unneerssery Hligation and avoldable complications. The i- effects of gach directions heve been considered by thes Court tn OC. Jacob ws, Director of Gienlogy and Mining & Ame. ~ SG09 COP SU Pia:
any "decision on rights and obligations af parties, Lite do they realins the cangequenozs af such a dimection to 'consider'. W ihe representation vee geds a rele! which he would sob by reason of the direction t) gidever' acul rejected, the ex- idatian swe pe MURR wR reference ic the aise of astion of 1Q88, bat by treating che rejection of ihe exnployse Shee ao a6:
orignal representation given in 2000, as the cause of action. A prayer is mace for quashing the reje P pepresentation ard for grant of the rehet aimed ga the ce don. The TrihunciasHigh Courts routinely entertain such applications petitions igraring the bree 3 the yeprssemiaton, and pre ay preotding yweesd GQ SNeeHres Hes olebe om merits and tion order eince if is a statutory requirement. in the case of N grant relief In this manner, the bar of Retehan or the laches gets obliterated or ignored."
When a belated PEpPMeSetadhlion in regard to a 'stale' or "dead! issue / dispute ig. considered and decided, wi compliance with a direction by the Court/Tribunal to do ao, the date of such decision can mot be considered as furnishing u fresh ease of action for reviving the 'dead' iseue or Ume-herred dispute. The issue of imitation or delay and laches sheuld be considered with reference ta the original cause of action and not with nefenerice to the date on whic! 8 an order is pasecdt in compliance with a court's direction, Neither a court's direction to comauler & xe presentation issued without examining the merits, nor a decision given in © compliance with such direction, sill extend the imitation, or erase thu delay arst laches. A Court or Tribunal, before directing "consideration of « claka or representation should examine whether the claim or representation is with reference to a 'live' issue or whether it is with reference tu a "dead or "atale' feet. Wf & is with reference fe a "dent or 'state' issue or disputa, the eourt/Taiburd sheald put an end te the matter and shoukl net chrect consideration or reconsideratiin, if the court or Tribunal deciding to direct 'ronsideration' without ieelf examining of the merits, 8 should make it clear that such considermtion will be without prejudice to any contention relating fo Limitation or delay and laches, Even ie the court does not axpresaly say so, that would be the legal positiant arul effect. In a Full Bench judement dated 30.8.2018 of tis Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rama Chandra Seren -vs- UO] & Ors. in OA No. 196 of 2012 i was held on the issue of delay as under-
"14, fr: so fur as point af reference at SLNo.{i) Le. whether the present D.A suffers from laches and limitations; end whether the CAT, Kolkata Bench should have considered the point of limitation, while entertaining sound adjudicating O.A.No.694 {2001 is concerned, we may vbserve that a person who feels that his/her sight bas been abridged in any manner, must approach the Court within a reasonable period. This is necessary fo avild disimating the administrative set up after has been functioning on a certain basis for years. The impact om the administrative set up is a sirang reagan to deoline consideration of a stale claim unless the delay ix ewisfactorily explained. In this sonnection it is profitable to rely on the deeision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of D.C. S.Negi -Vrs- UOr & Others (Special Leave ta Appeal (ivi) No TOSG/2OLT FOC STOQSIN] Ledisposed of on OF.05.2002) in which I hes been held as under:
"Before parting ak the ouse, we consider Os LEORSOY ay note that for quite some tune, the Adm unis stran ive Tribunals establ seh un sale the Set) ; ae Ewen ontertaining and deciding the appliortion fled ui aeotion 29 of te Act ix complete disragard of the mandate of Seetan whiok mit as under "OP Limifedion(]) A Tibunal shall not adyut an application- fey} in @ ouse where a Anal order such as is mentioned in. dause jajaf suk section ©} of geotion 20 fees beer made it ourinecton wath the QREVARNCE 'unless the application ix made, within one year from fhe date an whieh suck Anal order has been made fb} in a cose where an appeal or oe mendioned in clause (b} af sub section (2) of made and a perad of sis months Real ewpired 'thereaft er eithe 7 auch Final order heaving been made, within one year fram tie date of expiry of tke said period of sic monihay m3} Notutihetanding anything contained in oub section {2h wihere-
fa} the grea in esect of wehial an application is mode had arisen By reason of any ander muule any time during the period of three years ima diately prevading the date en whic of the = ra PS = Fe ry PS ry S £ 2 S s 3 ¢ Bg z ¢ ¢ BS Be :
& BS z & = y = A Sy Ny t Ne y y = y y PS 5S Lane he Rae "wx garg wont ERE RE SE SCHON, Sag 2 ¥ es th Fe Ce 6 et rhe TEE BERESS oe SS 5 ey.
& Ned ae is + ified fo) & 2 SY SACKS Rgrenanos he HA ERS HAUNT Eiigh Cow ack, pen os & SIR
2.
's exEs f ihe 4 x ae oe fa, eo x % ae BS a ies.
a4.
at Sj ted ferred fo in clause fal & € of Yt a period ¢ FZ) canfamed Sed z:
@ present PR SEE rte pe s 2 .
xe iy be admitted resoal of sw riod ex Pw f ways regret a } fe
-t ue st Ks fie abe rRarnthe & 2 thew 8 } Yodn ae any ™ , cay < d er thy 18 fers) SREP aye c:
mling ag RS 3 Pe a = NFS CER Fe TAS AS "3.
> 8, Tue 2 clear thet the ee = $s fore Ss wha P ME uO w@ under f HERD y thot the perio' ?
tener fh, seed be eh FS PO ~ merrcisahe Sy ay FRE LT x NK Med on het A prace TRE QHoewn ne NLUE IGF, ~ Eh ee St o 23 .
BAS R s SCO FREY fb) ?
€ # COS Eee ey:
Te Oe & & ft § FWENES same ¢ a by the > RSE rs % SOE ERS fet tt abdicale fs duty te act & aceurels dant af Nis AACR.
vig f the Pes Thar O he Ng wher a persan who is not Suan be.
Moreaver, the ou SMELL ESL ANSE NS ERLE RAL GARG LAE SRL LAPT SAPNATLEN VE ENS ONS END ONSET DOORS CHEER IEN EECA PEND CERN NOTA RE SF nm he Heard after 8 TRO s .
o tt, oan. His writ: pe at came relef should % x, ESS "RE 8 With ears on the ground th BOQUIENCE nights. art seaple af y 3:
TEe SS ASS A7OD of ghis, came x Ey * to B cote .s RS * Res fh % the case of Chaisman, Be QRS < Hort abr * Visi s 3 BH we x i a tort U.P Jal Nigam & Ane ve Jaswant Singh && Another Appeal ic tuted x y .
EY SF %, & ' 2 PETS similar! * om a ad fhe '3 ats ar camaideration before th:
a oe, graaite 8 2006 8 wardrinys Lee dy. anere :3 3
art io State ay sex Che 'x Others us. SM Kotrawt & Others reported i s Horie As their Lordships have rufed as under: y meri by 5 Mt a ck e.83 ged AEE Kernataka & EBay ? wherel SO "y we ear LEA, tat @ fo Ihe f earnbd s, Qatar afk 8, for ihe x LPS és:
bay whic for de exrnlonatia wer. FR x SENIOR Gg coc stoun emedy ¥ axplanation
-
Said meena Aad LUGS poe?
¥ CA fore Ee £ the rad fe a :
ON Of fry oF x FERED ite ad Te eg RE FREY 3 Pa 7 th tat RAE ' i2, In view of the ratie of the Auigments ay discuesel above, if is necessary for the Tribunal te examine the issue of delay arei Hiedtation even if it was not mentioned by the respondents im the Impugned order or in the counter and the point raised by the applicant's counsel in Kis written submission that the question af delay oannot be raised now as it was not mised by the respondents while issuing the order iseuied rejecting his representation for antedating his promotion at par ¥ with bie PATHOTS,
13. The appheant's counsel hee also cited the case af M.P. Singh Barent isupra} in which it was held that if the furior af the appellant-employee in that ease Was promoted from a date when the appslant was im service, them the appellant wil also be entitled for the same benefit as his junior. But in thet ted case, the appellant had raised iis claim as saan as the Tritmanal passe] the arder dated: 11.93.1998 extending the benefit to the juniors of the appellant by moving a Wisc. Case before the Tribunal in 1Q08 iself which was rejected by the Tritrunal. The appellant challenged the rejection order in Hon'ble Nigh Court in A writ petition which was also dismissed and f was challenged by the appellant before Hon'ble Apex Court. It is clear that there was no isaue of delay on the part of the appellant in the cited case. Nen'bis Apex Court held in that cease that the appellant was also eligthle for the same benefit extended to the fumiers even though the appellant had retired from service and after his retirement his funior's promotion wae made effective fram a date when the appellant was in service. This judgment is Inappleahle for the present OA Nor of delay on the part of the before ws since in this GA, there is a queat applicant in raising his griewamece before autharities or before the Tribunal after simifarly placed employees/his juniors were allowed such benefit by the order ef the Tribunal which was finally implemented an 4.2.2015. Even afler $,.3.2015 alse the apphoant failed te raise his grievance within the tone stimulated under section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and there is no application for candaning delay.
14. The argument in the written submission on behalf of the applicant that the sore of the princigies laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arvind Kumar Srivastava (supra) have not been examined In the case of Union of Inia & others vs. Sri Niranjan Nayak which is cited by the respondents in counter. The fadgment dated 24.7.2018 of Hon'ble High Court in the cage of Sri Niranian Nayak {supra} ([Annexure-R/1} stated the following about | facts of the Cage~ *Cansideringe the rival subriission of the parties and after going through the impugned order it reveals that the tibunal hea dismussed about the elie' claimed by the applicants in the aleresaid original applicatinns ELOROOL POLLO LE hi eenendannceeeed, FS :
g g N Ni N x Wet OMe POO PPTL EMP OLE ME PEDELEO MAPLE ADEE EEO AA II ALI AIEEE separately in all the original a enone Se Fe a : SOURIS REE, we have taken the fuct stated in O.A. No. 318 of 20 & ot.
oa & ae x oe tue wet eet
3.
a og.
we nae 'of %y isd e ree 3g 5.5 a] "
The applicant pained the Department af Poata as a -Pootrnan an SS.1876 and later joimed as Postal Assistant on 31.7 198] by grate sh Departmental Examinatinn. He owas primoted under TROP Scherne on SL7.IG87 om campietion of 18 years of servion, aa Postal Ses ani. Subsequently, he was promoted ty BCR on 81.7 9006 The applicant claims that according t: the Deparimentd Clraular, PRORSRCR are promotians corresponding to LSO/HSG-H cadres. AppNeant is en titled to Promotion to NSG-Toon completing 8 years service in LSS cadre and promotion to H&a-t an complet ng yRara servic RSG. y He should hase beer promoted fo HAG1 on 31.7.2005 said to the HSG-I on 317. 2008, The Tritinal has forents ated the issue that avhether ihe orders of ider promotion t9 a EN promotion be treated as regulay : H after S years of aervice in LSts an nd 0 HSO- 4 ner 3 VRAES srieame by HORT, The "Primal sete ring to the decision rendered by the Madras Bensh eribot jal in CHA Na, O79 of SE - "2004 witch was conkened by the Madras 2B Nigh Count and the suid dg of the O.A. Ne. 2198 of 3p ¢ Oiading effect on the Thkumal, has disposed SS by sarder dated 29.7. S008. The nee Ove der WAS challenged in WW, 89 of SG08. This Court while dlamiosis: ag wh. petition on 018 dose not find any indinity ia She order of the Tribunal which was cludlanged before the Apex Court in SUP. The Apes Court also dismissed the SLE.
The applicante-cppeite parties contended herons the jomed the Departraent of Posts "36 Postnian then :
puasing the Gesartmental Sxaminetien. Under the 7 3CIP ee heme: an of TS years of service they jof Pow! al Assistant', Theres BCR, They further contendedt es the Departmental Oly are promotions cormesportedin LSOSHSO-T cadres. They are vey 4 .
promtaticn NSO-H en nompicton of § years of eerdce ag LSC es ~adre and nay Sranmichon to HSG-l on e coy of 3 yen reat S ae: ge ee As auch they should have been promoted to H&G years HNS-Din the year 2068, Thereafter they have ch Was exteridecd tn the PPS of GOO dated 337 "2008. "Their | representatic S were * made | ie the roar _ iS. Fhe authorities Rave rejected the seme. Thereafter they have appr (the Tribunal when the other set of employees who have approached the Tribunal to get those benefits, The applicants S-oppuait fe parless : imed such benehe ns mor they have approached the Court of Law whan cause of se an arose in ths peer 2005 or in 2008 ane they y approached | the Piiberal if "3018 alter their retirement even ac amd other aeuplopnes get that hbereht fy che promened the aulhoarity te extend sich henetit y Hive . sien . aver the matiers for years together and they rat a be t treated oN s fonce-aitters Considering the aforeaaid feete and the seniled principles, we act aside the opsened order dated IR 3 passed hy the Central Administrediv Tribunal, Cutterk Benoh, atte ack 4 in CLA. No. 318 of 2017 als ne wath £ } S84, 38S, SHG A QS? of BOIS in ex Sxcising the jurisdich umeder Actos 227 of he Soret Hon of Talia.
ovordingly the writ petitiens are allawed,"
ea ERS im. In the case cited by the respondents, ag discussed above, Hon'ble High Court found the claim of the employsos to be barred by [brutation as the emipinyee in the cited case submittal the representation iy QOTS the benefits of the order dated 24.7 2008 passed im the QA No. £166 of 20 in the present Gd, the applicant had also represcmicd first in Gre year 2018 for WSgE z i 13 implementing the order dated 23.7. 2008 of the Tebunal in OA No, L196 of 200% (vide para 4.2 of the GA) aml then he follower up with another representation dated 14.5.2018. The applicant explained in para 4.9 of the OA that he came to know about the arder of the Tythunal only on S.Q.2015 after the arder dated 4.2.2015 was passed by the respondents implementing the arder dated 23.7.2008 of the Tribunal was after the order was upheld in Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Apex Court.
16, It was alse pointed out in the GA that the benefit was extended to another group of 1G employees Gunter to the appleant) when order dated 23,2,.2018 was passed. Applying the ratio of fu wigment in the case af Arvind Kumar Srivastava (supra), the cause of action in this case would be treated te have arisen on 23.7.2008, when Tribunal allowed the benefit for same of the applicant's faniors and from that date, the question of delay will have to be counted, not fram the date when such order was implemented. The Anding of Hon'ble High Court as per the fudgment dated 4.7 2019 iAnnesure R/T} is based on the fudgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arvind Kumar Srivastava (supra). As per the ratio of the judgment in the case af Arvind Kummer Srivastava (supra) it is clear that the applicant ie te be treated as 9 fence-aitter who waited tl the order of the Tribunal dated 23.7. 2008 wa implemented after it was finally upheld in Hon'ble Apex Court. Therefore, the avermenis of the applicant in the DA that he came to know about & after implementation of the Tribumal's order on $.2.2015 and 33.23.2018 wil not protect. the applicant's QA from limitation which is to be counted from the dated of Tribunal's order on 23.7.2008 allowing the benefit of retragpeetive -
promotion to some of the juniors of the applicant, i7, This is clear from the following observations in the judgment af Hon'ble High Court about the fudgment in the case of Aryind Kumar Srivastava {guora}i-
"Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vrs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and others reported in GOGLS) } aC e LAS 5} 13) at paragraphs 23.1, 22.2 sul 22.9 held that:-
"aa.1 The normal rule is that when a particular set of employwes is given rehiet by the court, all other identically situated persons need ta be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing sa would amount Wiscrimiiation and would be violative Article 14 of the Constinstion a India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court em time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should b trented similarly. Therefore, the normal mie would be that merely poomuse other sinularly persona did net approach the Court sarker, they are not to be breated differently. 22.2, Hervever, this principle is subject to well-recagnised exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those perecs who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into same and woke up after long delay anly because of the reasen that their counterparts whe had approached the court carter in time sucoended in their eflorts, then such employees cannot claim that the Lene 3 ¢ pe g Rg BS = z 3 3 $ S S S 3 3 S ay 3 3 Be benefit uf the jdemene rendered | in the cane of stentarly aitteated persons % itiers and laches ey or the aati fee once, would be & valid ground te dismias 20.2 Reweyer, this exception may not judgmen 33 pronounced lye the Court was Autamnent i mw "gers 'with intention to give boned to all similarly aituuted persons, whether they approaches! the sourt or net. With such. pronoun ement the oltigation is cast up the authorities to Rself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated persons. Sach 2 Siete Ty SOE AECL when the aublechmatter of the decision totiches upon the policy matiors, Kke scheme of regular and the Uke fgcn BC. Sharma Y. Union a Indis}. Qn the other hand. the Judgement of the court was in persona f holding that benefit -of the said prdgoent shall aocrus to the parties before the court and suck act intention is stated expreesiy in the judement ar it can be implieriy found out fa the tenor and bungnage of the pudgment, those whys went to Ret the benallt of the eat fudement extended to them shall have to satinty that their petition dees not suffer from. either laches and delays ar wiieseencs."
i& fewas submitted on behalf of "the apalicant that the case af the applicant x in the present OA comes within the exception stated in the Algment in Arvind Beas Kamer Srivastava's case. The exceptional case mentioned in the ahove judgmert for which the question of delay will nut be raised is agploatle wher the fadement against which the applicant seeks parity, is Ghe fudgmnent in ren. SS By ers 3 * The ee Jaime parity based on the order dated 38.7 2008 of the Tribunal * vars eo oN. NEN B59 eee aa fudement in rem. We are unable to agree with Such avermentis for the reasan thar the same Arioment dated 36.7. 2008 h t been helt as a fademernt & & YS rer by Hon'ble Nigh Court in the fudament dated 34.7 2018 'Annesure-RsT), ?
x Further, the ave has not been able fo Airnish Strong: @murkie fo prove ¥ ghat the order dated 23.7. 2008 in OA No. 1196/2004 which is based on earlier order of madras Bench in OA No. S79/2008 a fudgment in rem. The arder dated 23.7 2008 discussed about a Pall Bench decision af the Trifuinal in O8 No. 3929/2000 holding a different view in the matter. Hence, the argumunt that the arder dated 23.7 2006 is a judgment in rem is not tenable. . oS {G, TE is een that the promotions allowed to the applicant had been accepled by them for a long time ancl he heel retired an GQ.1 1.2008. Resides Che question oi of delay, euiicient justifications have not been furnished in the QA ty call for any interference in the matter which might unsettle settied position of Semianhy arr eriiiiement! for prosetons§ ete, The applicant im OA No. SOS/2O018 ann ather OAs being oorisidered alc the OA Noe, SOS/ SQLS, have not even furnished the details of their faniors who have been allowed ue ay per = the order dated 42.0015 of the respondents. fe is a settied position of law that oy, the question of seniority is not to te: re-opened alter aitice if may afiect the rights and entitiement of ather employers. gen a
20. In view af the fects ard circumstances of the case ag discussed in the preceding paragraphs of this order, the avermerits/argurments made on behalf of the applicant that his case is not barred by limitation and delay, have ne force, We are of the considered view that the facts of the present DA are aquarely covered by the judgement dated 24.7 2018 of Han'ble High Court in the WP) Na. FOIS of 2Q17 as extracted in para 13 above, Therefore, folloving the judgment dated 24.7. 2018 (Annexure R/1} of Hon'ble High Court, we holt that OA being barred by limitation is Hable te he dismissed. 2k. in the circumstances, the OA No. SOS/2016 and all ather GAs with shnuar facts, are dismissed with no order as to costs. (SWARUP KUMAR MISHRA) (GOKUL CHANDRA PATH MEMBER) 5. 3.44 MEMBER {A} LNath