Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Ranjit Kr Biswas vs D/O India Post on 22 April, 2019
KT
.jfrf
;
*
f
ITT THE CETCTRAX AEMUTISTBATIV'E TPIBUNAI, I
CALCUTTA BENCH, CALCUTTA. ;.
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION X9 OP THE ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL ACT, 1985.
j
!
TITLE OF THE CASE O.A. rro.3ST)/(5-0OF 2017.
M-A- %^/%S3l%!>n^ M'/) vn/xijl-afg
SHI BAKJIT KOMAR BISWAS, .
son of Lata Bhnsan Chandra Biswas, ■
residing at Banshi Mondal Road,
P%0. Badartala, P.S. Basirhat ?
District : 24»Parganas (North),
PIN : 743 292.
.. APPLICANT.'
Versus
\
)
\ 1. The Union of India,
T /
I
service through the Secretary.
Ministry of Communication,
; MSanchar Bhavan",
■:
New Delhi - 110 001.
:
\
t /fe. 2.'HiChief Post Master General,
!
■
West Bengal Circle, Yogayog Bhavan i :• -a
f
i
Kolkata - 700 012. t
», V
:
; contd « #
/
f
/
i
f- ST?
S.
:I
I
i'
J
/•
;■
3. Tha Post Master General, ;
South Bengal Region, Yogayog
f
t
j
Bhavan, Kolkata - 700 012.
4.^Genaral >fanagQr,
i
Postal A/c & Finance,
j
Pension «* I, West Bengal
Postal Circle, Kolkata-700 01S.
j
S.TKtpresidency Post Master,
Calcutta G* P. 0 • * Calcutta -
700 001.
;
i. 6. Sr. Superintendent of Post
I Offices, Bast Calcutta Division,
i Kolkata - 700 014.
i.-
f
i
•i
.
7. The Post Master,
Barabazar Head Office,
Kolkata - TOO 007. i •*
f
P
r -i
!: 8. Superintendent of Past Office, i.
y
1 Barasat Division, P.0. Barasat,
\
i
Kolkata - 700 124.
•• RESPONDENTS•
'
contd • •
f?
:
j
i,
;■
.}
1
' y /
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL '
CALCUTTA BENCH
/
KOLKATA
i
/
No.O.A. 350/150/2017
M.A.350/859/2017
b^e of *. 2.7-0 ii- I ^
M.A.350/27/2018
Coram : Hon'ble Mrs.Bidisha Banerjee, Judicial Member
HorVble Dr. (Ms.) Nandita Chatterjee, Administrative Member
Ranjlt Kumar Biswas
Vs.
Union of India & Others(Post)
For the applicant : Mr. A. Chakraborty, counsel
Mr. D.P. Adhikary, counsel
For the respondents : Mr. B.P. Manna,; counsel
ORDER
Bidisha Baneriee, Judicial Member Heard Id. counsel for the parties. ;, /
2. The O.A. has been preferred to seek the following reliefs:-
•( "a) An order be kindly issued directing tbe-concerned Respondent authorities to consider the specific aspects of the denial of promotion of the applicant under 7ncenf/Ve Order/Scheme' and the subsequent delayed promotion of the applicant by eleven months and to reassess the salary and the resultant amount of pension of the applicant and to communicate the result of such consideration to the applicant, in an expeditious manner; . ' \ "
bj Any othe/further order or orders as to Your Lordships may deem fit and proper:"
The M.A.350/859/2017has been filed to seek the following reliefs:-
"a) An order be issued directing the concerned Respondents Authorities to consider the Representations marked as Annexure "A/7" and "A/8" to this Application and to take a Reasoned Decision, regarding the irregularities/arbitrariness meted out to the Applicant during his service tenure and to communicate the said Reasoned Decision to the Applicant.
b) An order also be issued directing the concerned Respondents authorities to consider the aspects of the denial of promotion of the Applicant under Incentive Scheme and the .c subsequent delayed promotion of the Applicant by eleven months, as stated in ;
I. / 7 k ' I-
2 ' ,> t i.
, IT paragraph No.18 above and to reassess the salary and the resultant amount of Pension • !v L__j/ of the Applicant and to communicate the result of such reconsideration to the Applicant. * { c) Any other/further order or orders os to Your Lordships may deem fit and proper." / s?- The M.A.No.27/2018 has been preferred so that prayer(a) in the O.A. which has v Inadvertently been struck out, to be treated as part of the original application.
3. The facts in a nutshell would be thus:-
The applicant was appointed against a Class-IV post in the Post and Telegraph Department under Government of India on 13.11.1962 and was posted at Amharst Street Post Office in East Calcutta Division. He applied for promotion as Clerk under 'Incentive Order/Scheme' on 28.07.1965 as he was eligible in all respects for the same, but denied: promotion without assigning any rhyme or reason. He was constrained to prefer a series of representations one of which was responded to with an evasive;-',r^|lY;-pn 12.07.1971. '^Thereafter he was selected for promotion to the clerical cadre through a cpfhpjetitive examination ;
held on 26.08.1973 as a depart-m'e'n.taJ.!c.aiodi'cTate. He underwent training from / 30.04.1974 to 30.07.1974 i.V.'for a -period of three months and joined Barabazar i y Head Office on 02.07.1975 i.e. after almost 11 months of successful completion of training. The applicant has alleged that due to such delayed promotion he lost the chance of being promoted with BCR benefits which isv. conferred upon completion of 26 years of service. Since he superannuated on 30.04.2001, therefore, he narrowly missed the chance by two months two days.
4. It is an admitted fact that upon completion of 16 years of service the applicant was granted TBOP in the scale of Rs.1400-2300 on 02.07.1991 reckoning his service from 02.07.1974 which he accepted without demur and without asking for counting from the date he completed the training in July, 1974. By virtue of 5th Central Pay Commission's recommendations, his pay was revised to the scale * 3 «, . i ■t of Rs. 4,500'7000 and admittedly he preferred a representation only on ■'1'-
i-_y> r 29.01.2013 after his superannuation to point out the alleged / f irregularities/arbitrariness in denying him the benefit of higher pay, after a delay of 11 months of successful completion of training.
5. The applicant has submitted that one Malin Chandra Bhowmick who was selected -through same competitive examination held in 1973 and was placed after the applicant in the selection list, was allowed to join the promoted post long before the applicant,
6. By virtue of an order dated 18.08.1970 the applicant modified the reliefs /v, sought for in the O.A. as praye/-(a') to that of ah/b'nder' directing the respondents \ 1 \
-
to consider the specific,.,aspects-;pf'denial of promotion^of the applicant under i.
'Incentive Order/Scheme and^the subs^feht-delayed promotion of the applicant ?;
:: x by 11 months and ^to. reassess the resultant amount of pension and to ! . communicate the result of such consideration to the applicant, in an expeditious manner.
7. Ld. counsel for the respondents while vehemently opposing the claim would submit that after elapse of 42 years neither the personal file of the applicant nor the relevant records were available. In regard to Malin Chandra Bhowmick whose name was mentioned by the applicant, the respondents are •[ unable to comment in absence of available records at this distant date. They further stated that the 5th Central Pay Commission recommended the scale for ;■ TBOP officials as 4500-7000 and the applicant was rightly placed in the scale as on 01.01.1996.
$ i-
.&■
4
. J-
8. In the rejoinder, the applicant has reiterated that the he has been \ i i .7/ / ventilating his grievance during his service tenure as well as after his i superannuation and non-availability of records cannot be a ground of denying him his due relief.
9. We heard the Id. counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record.
10. We noted that law helps only those who are awake. In State of Uttaranchal & Another vs. Sri Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari & Others reported in 2014(1)AISU SC 33, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that a dead cause of action cannot rise like a phoenix. It, is trite axiomatic and settled law that repeated representations cannot revive a dead cause of action. In Chairman, U.P. Jalnigam & Another vs. Jaswant Singh & Another reported in it"2006(10)SC 500 it was held that "those who'sit on fth'e .'fence and wait for 3'favourable'order and thereafter wake up to take up the matter are not.entitled to^any relief. The court should not come to the rescue of such person when they themselves are guilty of waiver and acquiescence." Further, having noticed the fact that when the applicant was granted TBOP benefits reckoning his period of service from the date of entry to the promotional post without giving any weightage to the period i. he was in the lower post even after completion of his training, the applicant have by his omission to react at the material time accepted or permitted the respondents to believe a fact to be true and to act upon such fact. Neither he nor his representative can be allowed to deny the truth of the fact. Having failed to act at the material time, the claim would be barred under the doctrine of estoppel, waiver and abandonment.
/ sT"
• • i
$
:r J
X'
1
5
& /
■'J- i
/ in view of Dr. Karan Singh vs. State of iammu fit -Kashmir'& Another '
r /
& reported in (2004) 5 SCC 698 and in view of the decision of Hon'bie High Court at
%
i-.
Delhi in Kuidip Gandotra Vs. Union of India 8t Others reported in 2006 Vol.2 AISU 299, the applicant would also be estopped by conduct. s
9. In the aforesaid backdrop, the claim as put forth in this O.A. fails. } Accordingly the O.A. is dismissed along with the M.As. No costs.
i f j \ j / (Dr. N. Chatterjee) ( Bidisha Banerjee) , Administrative Member Judicial Member sb \ I •iu VnVJ.-. , * f.
$ 4/
*
(
J
* /
3
:* X ;■ * -i"
:•
i /
/
•»
;
i
V (