Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Dr. Shivanjay Sahay Varma vs Union Of India & Others on 19 April, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI Review Application No.112 of 2011 in Original Application No.2691 of 2010 This the 19th day of April, 2011 HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE V. K. BALI, CHAIRMAN HONBLE SHRI L. K. JOSHI, VICE-CHAIRMAN (A) Dr. Shivanjay Sahay Varma Applicant Versus Union of India & others Respondents O R D E R (in circulation) Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman:
The applicant seeks review of our judgment dated 8.3.2011 recorded in OA No.2691/2010. The OA aforesaid has been dismissed being barred by time. Admittedly, the applicant even though, eligible for promotion on the post of Chief Medical Officer (NFSG) from 2004, but was ignored in supersession of his juniors. In due course of time, he, however, came to be promoted in 2007 when the DPC found him fit for promotion. He filed Original Application seeking promotion from 2004, in 2010. The applicant under the caption in the OA, Details of Remedies exhausted had himself mentioned that he had submitted representations to Secretary, Ministry of Health vide letters dated 22.4.2010 (Annexure-5) and 11.5.2010 (Annexure-6), and that his representation was turned down by the Ministry vide letter dated 28.6.2010. We have already mentioned in our order sought to be reviewed that the applicant kept quiet in the matter before approaching the Tribunal. There is no mention of any other representation as may have been made by the applicant prior to 22.4.2010. We were of the view on the basis of contentions raised before us that the applicant kept quiet in the matter of his supersession and became active in that regard only because of change in law that even such ACRs which may be good but below benchmark, ought to be communicated. The cause of action that accrued to the applicant way back in 2004, and was raked up in 2010, was held to be barred by limitation. It was also held that the OA would be suffering from delay and laches without any explanation. In the review application, the applicant, for the first time, discloses that he had made representations earlier as well. It is pleaded in the review application that the applicant requested the Ministry vide letters dated 6.7.2006 (Annexure-IV), 31.7.2006 (Annexure-V), 21.9.2006 (Annexure-VI), 22.4.2010 (Annexure XVI) and 11.5.2010 (Annexure-XVI), as to why his below promotional benchmark ACRs were not communicated. Copies of the representations at Annexures IV, V and VI have been annexed with the review application for the first time. It is thus the case of the applicant that he was not sleeping over the matter and was agitating as regards his supersession eversince, at least from July, 2006. The applicant also pleads that ACRs of around 392 doctors for the years as old as 1999-2000 and even 2000-01 are being considered and being reviewed on representations, by expert bodies. This issue, it is stated, is under active consideration of the respondents. It is pleaded that representation and review of the ACRs of the applicant for the year 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05 on ground of limitation would amount to applying one set of standards for limitation on judicial ground, while another set of standard for limitation on administrative ground.
2. We have carefully examined the pleadings made in the review application, but find no reason to review our order dated 8.3.2011. Surely, the matter came to be decided by us on the basis of the material before us, and as mentioned above, there is not even a reference of representations made by the applicant earlier to 2010. Further, assuming that the applicant had made representations in 2006 as well, the same would be about two years after he was ignored for promotion. It may be recalled that the applicant was bypassed in the matter of promotion in supersession of his juniors on 9.8.2004, whereas, the first representation came to be made by him on 6.7.2006, which, as mentioned above, would be about two years after he was ignored in the matter of promotion. Even if the limitation is to be calculated from the date the applicant made his first representation, the OA filed in 2010 would be hopelessly barred by time. Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 dealing with limitation reads as follows:
21. Limitation - (1) A Tribunal shall not admit an application,-
(a) in a case where a final order such as is mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 20 has been made in connection with the grievance unless the application is made, within one year from the date on which such final order has been made;
(b) in a case where an appeal or representation such as is mentioned in clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 20 has been made and a period of six months had expired thereafter without such final order having been made, within one year from the date of expiry of the said period of six months.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where -
(a) the grievance in respect of which an application is made had arisen by reason of any order made at any time during the period of three years immediately preceding the date on which the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunal becomes exercisable under this Act in respect of the matter to which such order relates; and
(b) no proceedings for the redressal of such grievance had been commenced before the said date before any High Court, the application shall be entertained by the Tribunal if it is made within the period referred to in clause (a), or, as the case may be, clause (b), of sub-section (1) or within a period of six months from the said date, whichever period expires later.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), an application may be admitted after the period of one year specified in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) or, as the case may be, the period of six months specified in sub-section (2), if the applicant satisfies the Tribunal that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period. Perusal of the provisions contained in Section 21 reproduced above would manifest that in the event a representation may have been filed and a period of six months passes by without there being any order passed thereon, an application can be filed within one year from the expiry of the period of six months. The applicant made his first representation on 6.7.2006; terminus a quo for limitation commenced and expired after one and a half year thereafter, the OA would be barred by time. Repeated representations, it is too well settled a proposition of law by now, would not revive a cause of action which came to be foreclosed by bar of limitation. Insofar as, the plea of the applicant that the respondents were themselves considering by constituting review committee old ACRs of officers is concerned, suffice it may to say that the courts and tribunals are governed by statute. The provisions as regards limitation therein will have precedence.
3. Finding no merit in this review application, we dismiss the same in circulation.
( L. K. Joshi ) ( V. K. Bali ) Vice-Chairman (A) Chairman /as/