Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
H Sahoo vs Geological Survey Of India on 11 May, 2026
1 O.A.No. 260/00249 of 2018
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
O.A.No. 260/00249 of 2018
Reserved on 06.05.2026 Pronounced on 11.05.2026
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE SHRI SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J)
THE HON'BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A)
Hrushikesha Sahoo, aged about 55 years, S/o
Mayadhar Sahoo of Plot No.N-3/167, PO. IRC
Village, Bhubaneswar, Dist. Khurda, at present
working as Superintending Geologist,
Geological Survey of India, State Unit, Odisha,
At/PO. Nayapalli, Unit-8, Bhubaneswar, Dist.
Khurda.
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India, represented through the
Secretary, Ministry of Mines, Shastri Bhawan,
Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Director General, Geological Survey of
India, Central Headquarters, 27, Jawaharlal
Nehru Road, Kolkata-700016.
3. The Deputy Director General; Geological
Survey of India, State Unit, Odisha, At/PO.
Nayapalli, Unit-8, Bhubaneswar, Dist. Khurda-
750012.
......Respondents
For the applicant : Mr. B.S.Tripathy, Counsel
For the respondents : Mr. B.R.Swain, Counsel
RAVI KUMAR
2026.05.08
16:38:27 +05'30'
2 O.A.No. 260/00249 of 2018
O R D E R
PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):
The applicant is working as Superintending Geologist, in Geological Survey of India, Bhubaneswar. According to him, he was awarded grading of 7.06 in his APAR for the period from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013; which grading was downgraded to 5.62 by the Reviewing Authority and accepted by the Accepting Authority. As against such downgradation, he submitted representation on 20.09.2013, which was rejected on 09.12.2013. His juniors were promoted to the post of Director (Geology) on non-functional basis w.e.f. 01.04.2016 vide notification dated 14.11.2017 but, he was denied such promotion. He submitted representation on 05.12.2017 praying for increasing his grading in the APAR for the period from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013 atleast to 6.00 and consideration of his promotion to Director (Geology). In letter dated 18.12.2017, he received information under RTI Act, 2005 that his non- promotion to the said grade was due to below Benchmark grading in his APAR from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013 [2012-13]. RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.08 16:38:27 +05'30' 3 O.A.No. 260/00249 of 2018 Since, no decision was communicated to him on his representation dated 05.12.2017, he approached this Bench in OA No. 27/2018, which was disposed of on 19.01.2018 with direction for consideration and disposal of his pending representation. The respondents considered and rejected his representation vide letter dated 18.04.2018 mainly on the ground that in terms of the DoP&T OM No. 21011/1/2005- Estt.(A)(Pt.II) dated 14.05.2009, the officer/official concerned shall have to be given opportunity by giving copy of the APAR to make any representation against the entries and final grading given in the report within a period of 15 days of receipt of the APAR. Accordingly, applicant was furnished copy of the APAR for the period 2012-13 and, he submitted representation within a period of 15 days, which was considered, rejected and intimated to the applicant in letter dated 09.12.2013. Thereafter, the applicant kept silent and did not make any such memorial within the stipulated period of six months provided in D.P & A.R., O.M. No. 21011/1/77-Estt., dated 30.01.1978 and, thus, the representation, which he had submitted on 05.12.2017 being RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.08 16:38:27 +05'30' 4 O.A.No. 260/00249 of 2018 time barred did not warrant any action. Being aggrieved, the applicant has filed this OA on 11.05.2018 praying the relief as under:
"(a) To pass appropriate orders quashing the impugned order dtd.18.4.18 in annexure-A/7 as well as the order in letter dtd.09.12.13 in annexure-A/2;
(b) To pass appropriate orders directing the Respondents Nos.1 and 2 to consider the case of the applicant for his appointment to the selection grade (NFSG)i.e. Director (Geology) w.e.f. 01.4.16 by increasing his gradation from 5.62 to 6.00 for the year 2012-13 and extend all the service and consequential benefits (including financial benefits) in his favour, to which he is eligible and entitled;
(c) To pass such order to publish a fresh promotion list of Directors incorporating the name of Mr. Hrusikesh Sahoo, at Sl.No.41 (of list dtd.24.11.17 i.e. means below the name of Sri Debasish Rout) in GSI, portal immediately; and
(d) To pass such further order/ orders as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and allow this OA with cost."
2. The grounds set forth by the applicant in the pleadings and reiterated by the Ld. Counsel for the applicant in course of hearing, which grounds were strongly and stoutly opposed by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents based on the stand taken in the counter filed by the respondents.
3. After considering the rival submissions of the parties, we RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.08 16:38:27 +05'30' 5 O.A.No. 260/00249 of 2018 have perused the records and materials placed in support thereof.
4. Admittedly, the below Benchmark grading of the applicant is for the period 2012-13. In terms of the provisions, preceding five years APARs were to be taken into consideration for considering promotion to the post of Superintending Geologist. The UPSC taken the decision that officer attaining atleast four Benchmark grading, out of five ACARs gradings, should be assessed fit for the post of Superintending Geologist. Accordingly, notwithstanding the below Benchmark grading for the period 2012-13, since the applicant was having four Benchmark gratings in his APARs, he was promoted to the post of Superintending Geologist against the vacancy year 2014-15. The Benchmark is "Very Good". The promotion to the post of Director (Geology) was against the vacancy year 2016-17. In terms of the DoP&T OM No. 22038/1/2015-Estt.(D) dated 25.06.2015, preceding five years gradings in APARs are made absolute for such promotion. Since, the grading of the applicant in his APARs for 2012-13 was "Good", he was not found fit for promotion to RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.08 16:38:27 +05'30' 6 O.A.No. 260/00249 of 2018 Director (Geology) under NFSG against the vacancy year 2016-
17. Thus, this Bench are at a loss to know as to how injustice was caused to the applicant in the decision making process of the matter in promoting his juniors, who were declared fit by the selection committee based on the Benchmark gradings in preceding five years APARs, in absence of any such specific pleadings that anyone junior to him has been promoted despite not having five Benchmark APARs.
5. Admittedly, the APAR grading for the year 2012-13 was communicated to the applicant and he also submitted representation within the stipulated time, i.e. 15 days, which was considered and rejected by the respondents in letter dated 09.12.2013. The applicant remained satisfied with the order of rejection and did not avail any further opportunity available to him within the stipulated time of six months as per the rules. However, he woke up from the slumber only when he was debarred for promotion while promoting his juniors vide order dated 24.11.2017 by way of making representation on 05.12.2017 for increasing his grading in the APAR of 2012-13 RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.08 16:38:27 +05'30' 7 O.A.No. 260/00249 of 2018 thereby considering his promotion to Director (Geology) under NFSG. Thereafter, he approached this Bench in OA No. 27/2018 and this Bench without expressing any opinion on merit of the matter and that of on his representation dated 05.12.2017 disposed of the OA on 19.01.2018 with direction to Resp. Nos. 1 and 2 to consider his representation. The respondents considered but rejected the representation vide order dated 17.04.2018 by stating that the representation submitted by the applicant long after the six months provided under the rules merits no consideration. The said order has been sought to be quashed by the applicant without challenging the earlier order of rejection dated 09.12.2013. Thus, now the question arises for adjudication as to whether the consideration and rejection of his representation dated 05.12.2017 by the order of the Bench vide order dated 17.04.2018 gives a fresh cause of action to the applicant to revive the stale/dead claim, which was set at rest by the order dated 09.12.2013 after the rejection of his representation against APAR, which was not challenged earlier. In this regard, it is profitable to place reliance on the decision of RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.08 16:38:27 +05'30' 8 O.A.No. 260/00249 of 2018 the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. M.K. Sarkar, (2010) 2 SCC 59, wherein law was declared in the following terms:
"15. When a belated representation in regard to a "stale"
or "dead" issue/dispute is considered and decided, in compliance with a direction by the court/tribunal to do so, the date be of such decision cannot considered as furnishing a fresh cause of action for reviving the "dead" issue or time-barred dispute. The issue of limitation or delay and laches should be considered with reference to the original cause of action and not with reference to the date on which an order is passed in compliance with a court's direction. Neither a court's direction to consider a representation issued without examining the merits, nor a decision given in compliance with such direction, will extend the limitation, or erase the delay and laches.
16. A court or tribunal, before directing "consideration" of a claim or representation should examine whether the claim or representation is with reference to a "live" issue or whether it is with reference to a "dead" or "stale" issue. If it is with reference to a "dead" or "stale" issue or dispute, the court/tribunal should put an end to the matter and should not direct consideration or reconsideration. If the court or tribunal deciding to direct "consideration" without itself examining the merits, it should make it clear that such consideration will be without prejudice to any contention relating to limitation or delay and laches. Even if the court does not expressly say so, that would be the legal position and effect."
6. It is also noted that in one case, non-consideration of representation submitted seeking belated claim was disposed of by the Learned Orissa Administrative Tribunal with direction to dispose of the representation and, in consideration of such order, the authority rejected the representation, which he again RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.08 16:38:27 +05'30' 9 O.A.No. 260/00249 of 2018 challenged, and, the learned Tribunal granted him the relief, which was also upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa. The said order was challenged by the State of Orissa before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court quashed the order of the Hon'ble High Court by holding that the relevant original application of the individual being hopelessly barred by limitation, the same should not have been entertained by the Tribunal and the Hon'ble High Court clearly fell in error in not interdicting the judgment and order under challenge before it vide order dated 03.03.2025 in Civil Appeal No. ......of 2025 [arising out of SLP(C) No. 26965 of 2019- The State of Orissa Vs Bhagaban Mohanty (Dead)].
7. In view of the facts and law discussed above, we are of the considered opinion that the challenge of the applicant to the orders dated 09.12.2013 and 18.04.2018 being grossly barred by limitation has no legs to stand. Also, in the case of Suresh Sankhla Vs UOI & Ors [W.P.(C) No. 5600/2018], the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 10.10.2025 held as under:
"25. Given the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.08 16:38:27 +05'30' 10 O.A.No. 260/00249 of 2018 of India wherein the Writ Courts do not substitute their conclusion to the one arrived at by the Reporting Authority and the Reviewing Authority and that sufficient opportunities have been given to the Petitioner to improve himself after the adverse remarks in SMPAR and also an opportunity of giving a representation was given to the Petitioner which has been duly considered by the Special Director General, BSF, this Court is of the opinion that no interference is called for by this Court in the present case."
8. Besides the above, we find that rejection of representation/memorial submitted by an employee for the entry into APAR belatedly, i.e. beyond the limitation period provided under the provision, came up for consideration before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench in OA No. 374/2021 [Dr. V.Sraman, I.T.S Vs UOI & Ors] and the said coordinate Bench vide order dated 31.01.2023 dismissed the OA by holding that rejection of representation submitted against the adverse APAR beyond the limitation period called for no interference. The said order was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras reported in 2025:MHC:2349 by holding as under:
"31. For all the aforesaid reasons, we are of the affirmed view that the memorial preferred by the petitioner was barred by limitation and in the absence RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.08 16:38:27 +05'30' 11 O.A.No. 260/00249 of 2018 of any relaxation of the limitation period by the DoPT, the condonation of delay by the CIM cannot be legally sustained and hence, the consequential rejection order, which was impugned before the CAT, cannot be found fault with. The CAT had, in our considered view, properly appreciated all these aspects and by stressing upon the belated memorial preferred by the petitioner, rejected his application. We see no grounds to interfere with the order of the CAT."
9. In the case of S.I. Rooplal and Anr. Vs Lt. Governor through Chief Secretary ..., AIR 2000 SC 594, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"At the outset, we must express our serious dissatisfaction in regard to the manner in which a coordinate Bench of the tribunal has overruled, in effect, an earlier judgment of another coordinate Bench of the same tribunal. This is opposed to all principles of judicial discipline. If at all, the subsequent Bench of the tribunal was of the opinion that the earlier view taken by the coordinate Bench of the same tribunal was incorrect, it ought to have referred the matter to a larger Bench so that the difference of opinion between the two coordinate Benches on the same point could have been avoided. It is not as if the latter Bench was unaware of the judgment of the earlier Bench but knowingly it proceeded to disagree with the said judgment against all known rules of precedents. Precedents which enunciate rules of law from the foundation of administration of justice under our system. This is a fundamental principle which every Presiding Officer of a Judicial Forum ought to know, for consistency in interpretation of law alone can lead to public confidence in our judicial system. This Court has laid down time and again precedent law must be followed by all concerned; deviation from the same should be only on a procedure known to law. A subordinate court is bounded by the enunciation of law made by the superior courts. A coordinate Bench of a RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.08 16:38:27 +05'30' 12 O.A.No. 260/00249 of 2018 Court cannot pronounce judgment contrary to declaration of law made by another Bench."
10. We do not see any distinguished feature to make a departure from the view taken by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, upheld by the concerned Hon'ble High Court, so as to interfere in the impugned orders notwithstanding the provision under Section 21 of the AT Act, 1985 and the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M.K.Sarkar (supra) and Hon'ble High Court in the case of Dr. V.Sraman (supra). Hence, we hold that this OA deserves to be dismissed.
11. In the result, the OA stands dismissed along with pending MA, if any. Costs made easy.
(Pramod Kumar Das) (Sudhi Ranjan Mishra)
Member (Admn.) Member (Judl.)
RK/PS
RAVI KUMAR
2026.05.08
16:38:27 +05'30'