citedby: 72655859

Manish Chaudhary vs Comm. Of Police on 7 February, 2019

Admittedly, the applicant in this case is seeking direction to 15 the respondents to evaluate the ORM sheet of the applicant in respect of Roll No.406403 and if he has secured 55 or more marks then conduct his interview and also appoint him to the post of Constable (Exe). in respect of Recruitment-2009 (Phase-1) in case he secured 66 or more marks with all consequential benefits, and the instant OA has been filed on 19.9.2016. Admittedly, the applicant has taken action to file the OA in the matter only in 2016 and if the case of the applicant is presumed to be correct even then, the reliefs as claimed in this OA cannot be granted by this Tribunal as there is no explanation whatsoever with regard to the period from the year of declaration of result, i.e., 2009 to the year 2015, If the applicant is aggrieved by the non-evaluation of his ORM sheet, he ought to have challenged the same at the relevant point of time as the final selection to the said post was completed in 2009 and pursuant thereto, the appointments made and the appointed candidates are working and no vacancies exist on the said post. 8.3 This Court also finds that in the Misc. Application seeking condonation of delay in filing the OA, the applicant has only stated reasons quoted above in his OA and as referred to above, but this Court does not find the same as satisfactory to condone the delay and this Tribunal is of the considered view that he was not diligently pursuing his 16 matter and was not prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the OA within the period of limitation.

Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Manish Chaudhary vs Comm. Of Police on 7 February, 2019

―....filing of representations alone would not save the period of limitation. Delay or laches is a relevant factor for a court of law to determine the question as to whether the claim made by an applicant deserves consideration. Delay and/or laches on the part of a government servant may deprive him of the benefit which had been given to others. Article 14 of the Constitution of India would not, in a situation of that nature, be attracted as it is well known that law leans in favour of those who are alert and vigilant.‖ 8.2 In the light of the above said legal position of the various High Courts, especially in the case of Hariom (supra), and Apex Court as also having regard to the provisions of the Act ibid, it is clear that in order to get the benefit of limitation, the application has to satisfy this Tribunal that he was 16 diligently pursuing his matter and was prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the OA within the period of limitation.

Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rama Kant Shukla vs M/O Health And Family Welfare on 26 February, 2019

Admittedly, the applicant in this case is seeking directions to the respondents to extend the benefit of the judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No.1554/2003 dated 20.3.2013 and the said judgment was passed in personam as observed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the said judgment, the relevant part of the same has already been quoted above and the representations for seeking the benefits of extension of the said judgment was 13 preferred in 2016, which were duly replied by the respondents and there is no averment in the OA, which proves that he was diligently pursuing his matter and was prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the OA. Admittedly, the applicant has taken action to file the OA in the matter only in 2016 and there is no explanation whatsoever for the dealys with regard to the period of four years from the date of order of the Delhi High Court. If the applicant has also the same grievance as that of the member of the said Association, he ought to have taken steps at the relevant point of time as the said Writ Petition was preferred by the said Association in 2003 and the judgment on the same was passed in 2013 and the representations for extension of the benefits of the said decision of the Delhi High Court was sought by representations preferred in 2016 and it is the fact that the said judgment of the Hon'ble High Court was not in rem but in personam as is evident from the aforesaid quoted observation.

Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Amulya vs Comm. Of Police on 8 March, 2019

4. The counsel for the applicant vehemently and strenuously contended that the said order dated 22.08.2013 passed by the Hon'ble High Court is judgment in rem and had laid down the law and that the respondents should have selected and appointed the applicant against the post meant for UR category. The counsel for the respondents equally vehemently submitted that the recruitment is of the year 2009 and that the unfilled vacancies were carried forward to the next recruitment of 3 OA 3735/2014 2012 and in so far as the applicants in the above stated review petitions before the Hon'ble High Court had filed their respective petitions before the unfilled vacancies were carried forward and that the order of the Hon'ble High Court dated 22.08.2013 is not a judgment in rem and it was confined only to the review applicants before the High Court and as such the applicant is a fence-sitters and he is not entitled for any relief. The counsel for the respondents further submitted that in an identical case of Hariom, Head Constable Vs. The Commissioner of Police and Ors (Writ Petition (C) No. 10489/2015, this Tribunal dismissed the OA which has been upheld by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 18.05.2016, the operative portion of which is extracted below:-

Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Anil Kumar vs M/O Railways on 19 March, 2019

It is further relevant to mention that Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 10489/2015 on 18.05.2016, titled Hariom, Head Constable Vs. The Commissioner of Police and Ors, had by placing reliance on the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment held that the applicant in that case was a fence-sitter had approached the Court after a long delay and hence he is not entitled to any relief. Relevant para 11 of the said judgment of the Hon'ble High Court is extracted below:-

Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Narendeer Singh vs M/O Railways on 27 March, 2019

13. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 10489/2015 on 18.05.2016, titled Hariom, Head Constable Vs. The Commissioner of Police and Ors, wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that the applicant in that case was a fence-sitters and had approached the Court after a long delay and hence he is not entitled to any relief. Relevant para 11 of the said judgment of the Hon'ble High Court is extracted below:-

Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rajesh Kumar vs Comm. Of Police on 5 November, 2019

The applicant has challenged the Appellate and Disciplinary Authority Order, who has been dealt with the Joint Departmental proceedings. The OAs filed by the other delinquent officials, who had also been dealt with in the same departmental proceeding which were listed before another bench of this Tribunal have been already been decided in OA No. 3475/2014 titled Head Constable Sushil Sharma vs. Commissioner of Police and in OA No. 3437/2014 titled Constable Sohan Bir Singh vs. Commissioner of Police. A common charge sheet, reads as under :-

Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Anil Kr Upadhyay vs Comm. Of Police on 3 January, 2019

4. The counsel for the respondents brought to our notice another case of identically situated candidate as that of the applicant in the instant case passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 10489/2015 on 18.05.2016, titled Hariom, Head Constable Vs. The Commissioner of Police and Ors, wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that the applicant in that case was a fence- sitters had approached the Court after a long delay and hence he is 10 OA 1203/2014 not entitled to any relief. Relevant para 11 of the said judgment of the Hon'ble High Court is extracted below:-

Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Search Results Page

Refine Search

Search Results