Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Raj Pal Sharma vs Union Of India Through Secretary on 21 January, 2009
OPEN COURT CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH : ALLAHABAD DIARY NO.1372 OF 2008 ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. OF 2009 ALLAHABAD THIS THE 21st DAY OF JANUARY 2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. YOG, MEMBER-J HON'BLE MRS. MANJULIKA GAUTAM, MEMBER-A Raj Pal Sharma, Son of Mohan Singh, Resident of Vimala Nagar, Behind New Colony, District Bulandshahr (Ex-E.D.B.P.M.) . . . . . . . . .Applicant By Advocates : Shri V. B. Shukla Versus 1. Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Telecommunication, New Delhi. 2. Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Aligarh. 3. Superintendent of Post Office, District-Aligarh. . . . . . . . . . Respondents By Advocate : Shri S.C. Mishra O R D E R
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. YOG, MEMBER-J
1. Heard Shri V.B. Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri S. N. chatterji, Advocate holding brief of Shri S.C. Mishra, Senior Central Government Standing Counsel.
2. Applicant was admittedly appointed as Extra Departmental Branch Post Master (EDBPM). He contested election against service rules. A charge sheet was given and his services were terminated by means of order dated 29.03.1990/Annexure A-1 of compilation No.II.
3. Being aggrieved, departmental appeal was filed which was also dismissed on 01.10.1990/Annexure A-2 of compilation No.II. It appears, applicant challenged the departmental order for punishment on the ground of his contesting election while he was working for the department. He filed OA no.1789 of 2001, Raj Pal Sharma Versus Union of India which was dismissed vide final order dated 12.4.2002/Annexure A-VI of compilation No.II. Against this order writ petition no.7243 of 2002, Raj Pal Sharma Versus Union of India and Others which was finally decided vide order dated 13.11.2002/Annexure A-VII of compilation No.II. Applicant has filed present OA claiming following reliefs:-
"(i)issue order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondents concerned to pay the dues, which has been deducted from his salary during his service period before the removal of his service.
(ii)issue order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondents to pay pensionary benefits to the applicant with interest.
(iii)issue any other suitable order or direction which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances and facts of case".
4. Learned counsel for the applicant inspite of our specific query failed to show relevant unless wherein he can claim pension. Besides the above we find that the claim made by the applicant has become stale since applicant has not acted promptly/diligently in raising his grievance. The claim made by the applicant is highly belated.
5. In view of the above there is no merit in the OA. The same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
Member-A Member-J
/ns/
3