Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Deep Chand Meena Son Of Shri Kanpali Ram ... vs Union Of India on 8 August, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.932-HR-2011 Chandigarh, this the 08TH day of August, 2012 CORAM: HONBLE MRS. SHYAMA DOGRA, MEMBER (J). HONBLE MRS. PROMILLA ISSAR, MEMBER (A). Deep Chand Meena son of Shri Kanpali Ram Meena,aged 52 years, resident of House No.105, P&T Colony, Ambala, working as Senior Accountant Office of Director, Postal Accounts. Applicant Versus 1. Union of India, through Secretary-cum-Director General, Ministry of Communications & Information Technology Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi-110001. 2. Chief Postmaster General, Haryana Circle, Ambala. 3. Director Postal Services, Haryana Circle, Ambala. 4. Director Accounts (Posts), Ambala. Respondents Present: Sh. Anil Bhardwaj, counsel for the applicant. Sh. Rohit Sharma, vice Sh. Deepak Agnihotri, counsel for the respondents. O R D E R
BY HON'BLE MRS. SHYAMA DOGRA, MEMBER(J)
1. The short prayer made in this O.A. by the applicant is for issuance of directions to the respondents to consider his claim for pre-ponement of his promotion as Junior Accountant from 1995 instead of 1996 and Senior Accountant from 1998 instead of 2000 against the Scheduled Tribe points under Reservation Policy, which were admittedly vacant at the time when applicant was eligible for promotion for the said post in 1995. He has also prayed for consequential benefits of pay and allowances and arrears thereon with interest @18% p.a. from the due date till the actual payment is made to him.
2. The applicant was appointed as Daftri on regular basis under S.T. Category on 17.10.1983. Thereafter, he was promoted as LDC in April 1993 on seniority basis. The respondents conducted Departmental Examination during 03.5.1995 to 05.5.1995 for promotion to the post of Junior Accountant in which, the applicant also appeared but he was declared fail on 30.6.1995. The submission of the applicant is that he was required to be declared as pass under relaxed standards. Later on, he was promoted as junior accountant w.e.f.11.1.1996 under general vacancy instead of promoting him against ST category which was available in 1995, whereas, one Sh. Harish Kumar, a candidate from general category was promoted w.e.f. 16.10.1995. He submitted that since 1986-87, when promotion in SC cadre took place, no promotion was made to the post of Junior Accounts Officer/AAO cadre, therefore, he made a representation on 31.12.1998, which was followed by his repeated representation made to the respondents from time to time. The main contention of the applicant is that since he was declared passed on review of his result in 1995, he was required to be given promotion as Junior Accountant from that date when he was promoted on 11.1.1996, due to which his next promotion was also delayed by one year, which cause irreparable loss. Therefore, his promotion should be ante-dated as Junior Accountant followed by changing his promotion as Senior Accountant with all consequential benefits. The applicant has also sought information under the Provisions of RTI Act with regard to vacancy of posts under Reserved Category which is placed on record vide Annexure A-12 whereby, it was informed that since more than 50% reservation cannot be done, therefore, in 1993 last point No.31 could not be carried forward. They have also informed the applicant that the post of the ST was not de-reserved. So far as point No.31 is concerned that could be given to the applicant because of prohibition to reservation more than 50% in reserved category as two junior accountants from reserved category were already promoted. While referring to these documents, the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that he has received this information in the year 2007, therefore, his cause of action to file this O.A. still survives.
3. The respondents have filed written statement raising preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of this O.A. as being time barred under Section 21 of the provisions of Administrative Tribunal Act.
4. They have also drawn our attention to the fact that the applicant has not filed any application for condonotion of delay, therefore, this O.A. deserves to be dismissed.
5. On merits, contention of the respondents is that it is an admitted fact that on review of result of the applicant under relaxed standards, he was declared pass on 18.12.1995. As on 19.12.1995 sanctioned post for Senior Accountant and Junior Accountant were 93 and 23 respectively. They further submitted that by point No.31 of the roaster, one Sh. Harish Kumar (OC) was promoted as Junior Accountant on 16.10.1995. Against this point, there were four vacancies in 1995, which were filled by 2 OC candidates and two SC candidates. The applicant could not be promoted on ST point because SC point No.28 & 22 were arose earlier from point No.31 and under the rules enforced the oldest carry forwarded points should be filled earlier in comparison with the points arose later on. Hence Point No.31 was carried forward to the next year and the applicant was promoted as Jr. Accountant on 11.01.1996. If the applicant was promoted in the year 1995, then the reservation would have crossed the 50% limit. The said point of ST category was already filled on 16.12.1995, before announcing applicants result on review on 18.12.1995. Till date there is no JAO Part-II (Postal) qualified ST candidate since information of PAO Ambala, who can be promoted as JAO. In view of this since the applicant has completed three year of qualifying service as Junior Accountant on 01.1.2000, he was promoted as Senior Accountant on 03.1.2000, therefore, there is no illegality in the orders of his promotion, therefore, this O.A. has no merit and deserves to be dismissed.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents have drawn our attention to the case decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal on 26.11.2010 in O.A. No.992-CH-2009 titled Kamlesh Kumar Makkar Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, which was dismissed on the grounds of unexplained inordinate delay in filing Original Application, even though some information was sought by the applicant under RTI Act.
7. The applicant has not filed any rejoinder to counter the submissions made by the respondents in their written statement.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the record.
9. After careful consideration of the matter and taking into consideration preliminary objection raised by the respondents with regard to limitation, we are of the view that that the applicant has miserably failed out to get out of this objection. Admittedly, he has been sleeping over his right for the last 16 years. He did not raised this issue even after getting information under RTI Act in 2007, which makes this O.A. affected by delay and latches particularly in view of the fact that the applicant has not even cared to file any application for condonotion of delay in filing O.A., therefore, we are of the view that this O.A. is barred by law of limitation as cause of action, if any, arose in favour of the applicant in 1996 when under relaxed standards, he was declared pass and was given promotion to the post of JAO. He kept filing repeated representation, which could not be said to be ground to condone the delay for want of any application for condonotion of delay.
10. To come to this conclusion, we are supported by S.S. Rathore Vs. State of M.P. cited in AIR 1990 SC-10 and Bhoop singh Vs. Union of India & Others cited in JT1992 (3) SC 322 and also by the case of __________________________________________.
11. Even on merits, the applicant has failed to make out any case in his favour as on review of his result under relaxed standards, he was declared pass in December 1995 and immediately after, he was promoted on 11.1.1996. In 1995 Sh. Harish Kumar OC candidate was promoted and since there is statutory limitation of 50% reservation to be given to the reserved category candidates, therefore, we do not find any reason to grant any relief to the applicant at this belated stage for the reasons stated above.
12. Therefore, this O.A. being devoid of merits is dismissed and disposed of accordingly. No costs.
(PROMILLA ISSAR) (SHYAMA DOGRA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
Place: Chandigarh.
Dated: 08.8.2012.
KR*
8
7
O.A. 932-HR-2011