Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
T Paramasivan vs Ut Of Pondicherry on 17 February, 2025
1 OA No.310/01046/2015
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/01046/2015
Dated this the 17th day of February, Two Thousand Twenty Five
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR M. SWAMINATHAN. MEMBER (J)
AND
HON'BLE MR. SANGAM NARAIN SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER(A)
T. Paramasivam,
S/o Thangavelu,
No.17, Pattammal Nagar III Cross,
Mudaliarpet Post,
Puducherry. .. Applicant
By Advocate M/s. P. Rajendran
Vs.
The Union Territory of Puducherry
rep by the Secretary to the Government (Labour),
Chief Secretariat,
Puducherry. .. Respondent
By Advocate Mr. R. Syed Mustafa
2 OA No.310/01046/2015
ORAL ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member) This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief:
'To call for the records relating to the impugned order of the respondent in No.8363/Lab./SW/A1/2014 dated 24.11.2014 and quash the same and direct the respondent to promote the applicant as Workshop Instructor with retrospective effect from 28.10.2003 with protection of seniority and monetary benefits in the light of the Order passed in O.A.No.1513/2010 dated 26.2.2013 and confirmed in W.P.No.20539 of 2013 by order dated 29.7.2013 and grant him all consequential benefits.'
2. The fact leading to the filing of the OA are as follows:
The Applicant is currently serving as a Vocational Instructor at Government ITI (Men), Mettupalayam, Puducherry. Initially, he was appointed as a Mechanic Helper in the Transport Department before transferring to the Labour Department as a Workshop Attendant in 1997.
He became a Vocational Instructor in 2010. In 2003, the Labour Department sought applications from qualified individuals for 17 Workshop Instructor vacancies. The Applicant, along with six others, was eligible for promotion and sent for Craftsman Training (CTI) at government expense, completing it successfully. However, an order in 2003 raised the educational qualifications and experience requirements, reducing the promotion percentage from 50% to 15%. This order was challenged by Mr. R. Murugesan in O.A. No. 1142/2003, which was ruled in his favor by the Tribunal. The administration's appeal was dismissed in 3 OA No.310/01046/2015 2009. In 2010, Mr. D. Pakkirisamy filed O.A. No. 1513/2010 seeking retrospective promotion to Vocational Instructor from 2004, the date of his CTI completion. His application was allowed by the Tribunal in 2013, and the decision was upheld by the High Court. Despite this, the Applicant's request for retrospective promotion was not addressed, as direct recruitment for the position was made in 2008, overlooking the Workshop Attendants' eligibility. The Applicant filed a representation in January 2014 requesting the same benefits. Since no action was taken, he filed O.A. No. 1069/2014, which led to a Tribunal order in July 2014 directing the respondent to review and decide on the representation. However, the respondents issued an order in November 2014 rejecting the Applicant's request. The present OA challenges this rejection.
3. During the hearing, the Applicant's primary argument was that his representation was rejected solely on the grounds that the order passed in O.A. No. 1513 of 2010, filed by D. Pakkirisamy, granting retrospective promotion to the post of Vocational Instructor, was applicable only to Pakkirisamy. This reasoning is untenable. The Applicant asserts that, in all respects, his case is identical to Pakkirisamy's. Given that the Court found merit in Pakkirisamy's claim and granted him retrospective promotion, the Applicant should not be treated differently.
4 OA No.310/01046/2015
4. Furthermore, the Applicant contends that, since the facts of his case similar to the case of Pakkirisamy, the respondent should have extended the benefits of the order passed in O.A. No. 1513 of 2010 (dated 26.2.2013) and confirmed in W.P. No. 20539 of 2013 to him as well. It is well-established that the benefit of a judgment should be extended to all similarly situated individuals. The Government and its authorities should not force each person to seek legal recourse for similar relief. The impugned order is discriminatory and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Applicant therefore seeks the same relief granted to the said Pakkirisamy.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent argued that the order in O.A. 1513/2010 was an in personam order, not an in rem order, as it did not establish a general legal principle. The respondent emphasized that the prevailing Recruitment Rules at the time of the Applicant's promotion consideration were applied without regard to the availability of vacancies, especially given the substantial litigation between 2003 and 2010.
6. Further, the counsel pointed out that the Applicant, who holds an SSLC and a National Trade Certificate in Mechanic (Motor Vehicle), only acquired the qualification of Craft Instructor in 2003. Due to the ongoing litigation from 2003 to 2010, the Department could not convene the 5 OA No.310/01046/2015 Departmental Promotion Committee. After the litigation was resolved, the committee met on 16.2.2010 to fill the promotion post. Consequently, the request for retrospective promotion from 28.10.2003, the date of the Applicant's CTI training completion, could not be granted. The respondent's counsel thus requested for dismissal of the OA.
7. We have heard the submissions made by the both the parties and perused the pleadings and the materials placed on record.
8. Regarding service matters, particularly concerning seniority and promotion, delays should be strictly construed to avoid unsettling settled matters after a significant lapse of time. A person aggrieved by a promotion order should approach the Court within six months or, at most, one year of such promotion. While there is no statutory limitation period for Courts to exercise their powers under Article 226, it is considered a sound and wise exercise of discretion for Courts to refuse to intervene in cases where individuals fail to seek relief promptly. It would be inappropriate for someone to stand by, allow matters to proceed, and then approach the Court with stale claims in an attempt to disrupt settled decisions.
6 OA No.310/01046/2015
9. In the present case, the applicant has not approached this Tribunal in time. A Government employee is expected to redress his grievance within a reasonable period of time and he cannot be a fence sitter and institute litigations after a prolonged period on the ground that similarly placed persons were granted the benefits. In similar circumstance, the judgment dated 11.08.2022, rendered by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in W.P.No.38425 of 2015, is relevant to referred to. The High Court held as follows:
"9. A Government servant, aggrieved in respect of the fixation of seniority or promotion, has to approach the competent authorities and the Court of law within a reasonable period of time. They cannot wait for the issues to be decided by the Courts in respect of the litigations filed by other persons and thereafter approach the Court belatedly and make an attempt to get the retrospective promotion. Such belated approach cannot be encouraged by the Court as the said delay would cause prejudice to the Government also.
xxxxxxxxxxx
15. In view of the fact that the petitioner has not approached the Court of law and redressed his grievance within a reasonable period of time and now after his retirement instituted the litigation, the actual delay caused at the instance of the petitioner cannot be condoned. Thus, all these mitigating factors are to be considered for the purpose of granting the relief.
16. If the Courts have permitted such prolonged adjudication of the issues one after another on the ground that similarly placed persons were granted the benefits, there is no end for the issues and such a delay undoubtedly would cause prejudice to the interest of the Government and the financial constraints of the State. Thus, all these aspects are to be considered by the Constitutional Courts while entertaining such Writ Petitions. A Government employee is expected to redress his grievance within a reasonable period of time and he cannot be a fence sitter and institute litigations after a 7 OA No.310/01046/2015 prolonged period on the ground that similarly placed persons were granted the benefits. Such an approach was held as impermissible by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, this Court do not find any reason to interfere with the orders of the respondents at this length of time.
17. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No cost"
10. Applying the aforementioned judgment, we are of considered opinion that the claim of the applicant is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
(SANGAM NARAIN SRIVASTAVA) (M. SWAMINATHAN)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER(J)
17.02.2025
mas