Punjab-Haryana High Court
Joginder Singh vs Central Administrative Tribunal on 19 February, 2014
Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Arun Palli
CWP No.16787 of 2000 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.16787 of 2000(O & M)
Date of Decision:19.02.2014
Joginder Singh
....petitioner
Versus
Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh and others
.....respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARUN PALLI
1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr.Rahul Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner
Mr.Gurpreet Singh, Senior Panel Counsel for Union of India
***
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE (Oral):
An office order dated 09.08.1994 was issued by the respondents qua refixation of the pay of the petitioner in pursuance to his representation. That office order appears to have not satisfied the petitioner as his request for financial benefits was not granted but only notional promotion was granted from 17.08.1982 till 01.02.1992. The petitioner, thus, made a representation dated 29.10.1996, which was rejected on 24.02.1997, opining that the petitioner cannot be granted backdated financial benefits. The petitioner, thereafter, served a legal notice dated 21.10.1997 but the relief was declined vide communication of the respondents dated 04.07.1998. Thereafter, the OA was filed on 20.07.1998. The OA has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 06.10.2000 on the short ground of claim being barred by time as having Verma Neenu 2014.02.21 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.16787 of 2000 2 been raised after a lapse of 07 years.
On hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are unable to appreciate the conclusion of the Tribunal for the reason that the current dispute begins only with the pay refixation on 09.08.1994, where monetary benefits for the past were not granted against which the representation was made on 29.10.1996. In fact, as stated aforesaid, it took nine months of time for the respondents to reply to the legal notice of the petitioner, itself. It is the rejection letter dated 24.02.1997 which would give cause of action and thus the OA was well within time.
The result is that the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 06.10.2000 is set aside and the matter is remanded back for adjudication on merits and to examine the issue of the past financial benefits. The parties to appear before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh on 10.03.2014 and we are sure that the Tribunal will bestow early consideration on the matter, the original case being of the year 1998.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
(SANJAY KISHAN KAUL) CHIEF JUSTICE 19.02.2014 neenu (ARUN PALLI) JUDGE Verma Neenu 2014.02.21 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh