A litigant who delays asserting their rights for an extended period may be barred from relief, as delay defeats equity.

JUDGMENT :

NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, J.

1. Rule.

2. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. Heard finally with consent of the parties.

4. The petitioner has preferred the present petition questioning the order dated 29.02.2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench (“Tribunal” for short) in Original Application No. 231/2024 with further ancillary reliefs.

Facts

5. The petitioner was employed as an Appraiser of Customs in the Central Excise and Customs Collectorate (Goa) and subsequently joined the promotional post on 15.03.1993 as Assistant Collector of Customs (Preventive) Ahmedabad, Gujarat. The petitioner was temporarily posted as Assistant Collector at Porbandar by office order dated 16.4.1993. He continued to work at Porbandar up to July 1995. Thereafter he was transferred to Goa Regional Unit of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. The petitioner expected that he would be promoted as Assistant Commissioner (Senior Time Scale) after a period of four years from 15.3.1993. The petitioner was promoted vide order dated 24.4.2000 by the Government of India and the aforesaid promotion was made with effect from 16.4.1997 and not from 15.3.1997. The petitioner continued to work till 31.3.2002 i.e. the date of his retirement.

6. The contention of the petitioner is that due to incorrect date of promotion which was noted as 16.4.1997 rather than 15.3.1997, the petitioner missed out one additional increment which was due on 1.3.2002. The petitioner made numerous representations to the respondents Authorities stating therein that his date of promotion should be rectified. However, there was no action taken on behalf of respondents.

7. Hence, the petitioner preferred Original Application bearing no. 231/2024 before the Tribunal challenging the non-consideration of his representation and seeking necessary correction in the date of his promotion from Assistant Commissioner (Junior Time Scale) to Assistant Commissioner (Senior Time Scale) with effect from 15.03.1997, with all consequential benefits.

8. The Respondents filed their reply raising preliminary objection as regards delay and laches. The respondents have further stated that the petitioner has misrepresented before this Court that he has given multiple representations, however, the Tribunal had clearly observed that there was no acknowledgment or proof of delivery, submitted by the petitioner. The respondents further submitted that in spite of the fact that incorrect date of promotion has been mentioned in order no. 50/2000 dated 24.4.2000 which was issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi, the petitioner failed to take any steps to redress his grievance in time. The Respondents, say that the petitioner slept over his rights and approached the Court belatedly. This is a stale claim.

Submissions

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued, that the respondents’ have arbitrarily ignored the representation/s of the petitioner and have failed to correct his date of promotion which according to the petitioner, should have been 15.3.1997 instead of 16.4.1997. It was further submitted, that the respondents have violated Rule 11 of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1960 (“CCS Rules” for short) which was applicable to the petitioner during the relevant time. Under the said Rule the next increment of the Government servant whose pay has been fixed in the revised scale was to be granted on the date he would have drawn his increment in the existing scale. Learned Counsel highlighted that the Respondents by not granting benefit of the pension which he seeks entitlement to by correcting the date of his promotion from 16.4.1997 to 15.3.1997, violates petitioner's fundamental right under Articles 14, 21 and Article 300A of the Constitution of India. It is the contention of the learned counsel that admittedly the petitioner approached the Court belatedly, still Tribunal, should have entertained the O.A. No. 231/2024, on merits without going into the issue of