Back
2013 Supreme(Del) 960
High Court of Delhi
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG & V. KAMESWAR RAO, JJ.
Union of India & Others
Versus
A.K. Rastogi
W.P.(C) 4437 of 2012
Decided on : 05-08-2013.
For the Petitioners:R.V. Sinha, R.N. Singh, A.S. Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondent:G.S. Lobana, Advocate.
Adherence to the limitation period is crucial in deciding applications, and the Tribunal must consider the timeliness of applications as mandated by the law.
Headnote:
Promotional Benefits - Administrative Tribunal Order - CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 - BSNL Scheme - Indian Telecom Service Group 'A' - Reversion - Officiating Basis - Disciplinary Proceedings
Fact of the Case:
The respondent sought relief from the Central Administrative Tribunal, challenging the denial of promotional benefits and reversion from a higher post due to disciplinary proceedings. The Tribunal allowed the application, but the petitioners contested the claim, arguing that the respondent's promotions were temporary and reversion was justified due to disciplinary charges.
Finding of the Court:
The Tribunal held the reversion as punitive and not legally sustainable, granting the respondent entitlement to pay and allowances for the reversion period. However, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's order, citing the application's untimeliness and disregarding the mandate of the limitation period.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of the respondent's reversion, entitlement to promotional benefits, and the Tribunal's jurisdiction in deciding the application beyond the limitation period.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found the Tribunal's decision untenable due to the application's untimeliness, emphasizing the need to adhere to the limitation period mandated by the law.
Final Decision: The High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and dismissed the respondent's original application, citing the application's untimeliness and the Tribunal's disregard for the limitation period.
V. Kameswar Rao, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed by Union of India and four of its functionaries challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi dated October 19, 2011 in Original Application No.3533/2010 and order dated April 19, 2012 in Review Application No.65/2012 in Original Application No.3533/2010 whereby the Tribunal had allowed the Original Application filed by the respondent No.1 and dismissed the Review Application filed by the petitioners herein.
2. The Original Application No.3533/2010 was filed by the respondent seeking the following reliefs:-“a) That the impugned order dt. 17.11.2008, of the Chief General Manager, Uttranchal Telecom. Circle, Dehradun, denying promotional benefits of departmental proceedings, which finally led to dropping of charges, in equitable manner, with the promotional benefits continuously granted to his juniors, being discriminatory and not legally maintainable, may kindly be ordered to be set-aside by this Hon’ble Tribunal.
(b) That the intervening period of his reversion from the post of Divisional Engineer to Sub-Divisional Officer from 18.3.2004 to 07.11.2005, may kindly be ordered to be counted towards benefits of higher post of Divisional Engineer with all consequential benefits _ with continuous promotion in the higher post from 09.03.2001 uptil date of his retirement on 30.04.2006.
(c) The Respondent No.4, the Chief General Manager,Uttranchal Telecom Circle, B.S.N.L., Dehradun, may kindly be directed to allow applicant time-bound Junior Administrative Selection in the scale of Rs.17500-400-22300 w.e.f. October, 2004, with all consequential arrears. That refixation of his pension and all other retiral dues may be reassessed after fixation of his pay in the said selection grade as per the rules.
(d) That respondents may kindly be directed to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the arrears of pay and allowances and other retiral dues after allowing his benefits of officiation in the higher post of Divisional Engineer from 08.11.2005 till date of its payments. He may also be granted such interest for his placement in the selection grade of Rs.17500-400-22300, from due date, i.e. the date from which his representation for grant of selection grade remained unsettled by the respondent authorities.”
3. Some of the relevant facts are, the petitioner No.4 Chief General Manager, Uttaranchal issued orders of 12 persons including the respondent promoting them from TES Group ‘B’ to Senior Time Scale (STS) Indian Telecom Service Group ‘A’ vide order dated March 09, 2001 on purely local officiating basis.
4. That while officiating in Senior Time Scale of Indian Telecom Service Group ‘A’ a charge sheet was issued to the respondent under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 on March 17, 2004. In view of the said charge sheet the respondent was reverted to his substantive post in TES, Group ‘B’ on March 18, 2004.
5. Based on the inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority dropped the charges against the respondent in terms of his order dated September 26, 2005. That subsequently vide order dated November 08, 2005 the respondent was again promoted the respondent to Senior Time Scale of Indian Telecom Service Group ‘A on officiating basis.
6. The respondent retired on superannuation on April 30, 2006.
7. Be it noted that in terms of BSNL’ scheme the respondent was granted promotion from Sub-Divisional Engineer to Senior Sub-Divisional Engineer in the pay scale of Rs.13,000-18,250 vide order dated October 22, 2005.
8. The respondent filed an Original Application seeking the reliefs which have been referred above. It is seen from the reliefs, his claim primarily been that in view of the dropping of charges, he is entitled to promotional benefits continuously granted to his juniors. On that premise he has also sought for a further promotion in a time bound manner to the junior administrative grade with effect from Oc
