Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
HIMA KOHLI, PRATIBHA RANI, JJ.
DEEPAK SAXENA - Petitioner
Versus
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA THROUGH: ITS CHAIRMAN - Respondent
W.P.(C) 4166 of 2018 & CM No.16355 of 2018
Decided On : 25-04-2018
Delay Condonation - Employment Dispute - Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, Section 21 - The court discussed the delay in filing the original application, the reasons for the delay, and the provisions of Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The court highlighted the importance of timely approaching the Tribunal for relief and the significance of explaining inordinate delay. The court also referred to the legal position that making repeated representations does not justify delay in approaching the Tribunal.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought promotion to the post of GM (P&IS) and filed a petition for condonation of delay in filing the application after being aggrieved by the dismissal of the said application by the Central Administrative Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in approaching the Tribunal for relief was not satisfactorily explained and declined to intervene due to the inordinate delay. The court also emphasized that making repeated representations does not justify the delay in approaching the Tribunal.
Issues: Delay in filing the original application, justification for the delay, and the refusal to condone the delay.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that inordinate delay without satisfactory explanation may lead to the refusal of intervention by the court. The court also emphasized the significance of timely approaching the Tribunal for relief and the importance of explaining the delay.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, along with the pending application.
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 24.01.2018, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, dismissing M.A.No.2450/2017, for seeking condonation of delay in filing O.A. No.1298/2017, and the consequent dismissal of the said application.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as a Manager (P&IS) with the respondent/National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) in the year 1999 and was promoted to the post of Dy.GM (P&IS) in the year 2003. Though he was eligible for the next stage of promotion to the post of GM (P&IS), in the year 2008, another officer was posted on deputation.
In the year 2010, an advertisement was issued for selection to the post of GM (P&IS). The petitioner applied for the said post but he did not receive any call for interview. Thereafter, he sent a representation dated 17.02.2012, but received no response from the respondent. The petitioner adopted the RTI route to gather necessary information from the respondents. On 30.10.2012, he was informed that his qualifications were found inadequate for the post of GM (P&IS) by the Screening Committee.
3. The petitioner obtained a certificate from IIT, Kanpur, for clarifying that he possessed the necessary qualifications to the subject post. He continued representing to the respondent/NHAI reiterating his request for promotion to the subject post from the year 2007 onwards. Vide order dated 16.12.2014, the petitioner took charge on the post of GM (Electronics) on the repatriation of the deputationist to his parent cadre. The vacancy to the post of GM (P&IS) was again advertised on 07.04.2015 and the petitioner was promoted to the said post w.e.f. 11.12.2015.
4. After promotion to the said post, the petitioner started making representations to the respondents claiming notional promotion and restoration of his lost seniority of 6 years and 8 months in the cadre of GM (P&IS), w.e.f. March, 2009 along with consequential monetary benefits, on the ground that his application for the post of GM (P&IS), against the vacancy advertised in the year 2008, had been wrongly rejected by the Screening Committee, despite the fact that he was eligible having completed the required minimum period of service in the feeder cadre, in the year 2007 itself. The said representation of the petitioner was rejected on 20.12.2016.
5. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed O.A. No.1298/2017 for directions to the respondent/NHAI to promote him notionally to the post of GM (P&IS) w.e.f. March, 2009 and restore his lost seniority of 6 years and 8 months and also grant him monetary benefits w.e.f. March, 2009. Along with the said O.A., the petitioner filed an application seeking condonation of delay of 900 days in filing the O.A., which has been dismissed by the Tribunal by order impugned.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that delay of 900 days in filing the O.A. was for the reason that the petitioner had been making representations to the respondent/NHAI and was awaiting a response.
7. The above submission is, however, not borne out from the record. In his application for seeking condonation of delay before the Tribunal, in M.A. No.2450/2017, the following reasons were given for explaining the delay in availing the legal remedy:
(i) The petitioner kept on discussing the case with the top management and was getting an assurance that he would be promoted soon.
(ii) His request for disposal of his representation and a communication to him officially in writing, was not acceded to by the respondent.
(iii) That the eerie silence on the part of the respondent for a long period of around 1344 days, caused uncertainity in the mind of the petitioner regarding his case for promotion to the post of GM (P&IS) and he was in a dilemma as to whether he should approach the court and if yes, what should he challenge as he had not received a reply till 20.12.2016, in terms of the advice of his friends and colleagues.
8. It is an admitted case of the pe
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
