The Union Of India vs Shyam Shankar Prasad on 6 May, 2022
"11. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant
refuting the submission of the learned ASG submits
that there was no delay and laches on the part of the
applicant. Applicant's husband has sent several
representations right from 2002. The applicant came to
know about several facts regarding irregularities in
selection when the matter was being investigated by
CBI. The applicant when came to know about relevant
facts, she filed representation on 25-9-2007. The
Tribunal had condoned [C. Girija v. Union of India,
2011 SCC OnLine CAT 6120] the delay of 560 days
and allowed the OA on merits, hence question of delay
cannot be pressed in service. It is further submitted that
under 30% LDCE quota, two SC category candidates
were already in place, namely, Shri A. Balachander and
Shri J. Senguttuvan, hence no vacancy should have
been allocated to SC quota under 30% selection
notified on 14-10-1999. He submits that there was
ample material before the Tribunal that above two SC
category candidates being already working under 30%
under SC quota, no vacancy should have been
allocated to 30% LDCE. He submits that in spite of
direction of the Tribunal and High Court, applicant
never got promotion nor benefit of any pay fixation.
Applicant retired on 31-5-2015. Consequently, she had
to file Writ Petition No. 653 of 2015 seeking a
direction to compute all her benefits of promotion and
all retiral benefits on the promoted post.