Balbir Singh vs Union of India

Nirmal Singh, J.—In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 27.9.2000, Annexure P-6 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for short ''the Tribunal''), whereby the petitioner has been denied the benefit of arrears of pay on account of deemed promotion as Assistant Superintendent Telegraph Traffic with effect from 1.4.1992.

A perusal of the record shows that after successfully qualifying the departmental competitive examination held in March, 1991, the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Superintendent Telegraph Traffic in the scale of Rs. 1640-2900/- on 27.12.1993. After about six years, he filed an application u/s 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short, ''the Act'') for grant of relief in terms of the order dated 21.2.1997 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1006/HR/93 Maman Singh Chauhan and others v. Union of India and others. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 contested the petitioner''s application mainly on the ground that he was not a party to the application filed by Maman Singh and others.

After considering the pleadings of the parties and , hearing their Advocates, the Tribunal allowed the application filed by the petitioner with a direction that he be given notional promotion on the post of Assistant Superintendent Telegraph Traffic with effect from 1.4.1992 with the benefit of actual arrears, if any, from the date of its order, i.e., 27.9.2000.

Shri I.S. Sidhu, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is also entitled to the arrears with effect from 1.4.1992 and as were allowed to Maman Singh and others in O.A. No. 1006/HR/93. He submitted that petitioner is senior to Maman Singh and others and, therefore, the learned Tribunal has erred in not awarding the arrears with effect from 1.4.1992. .

We have given serious thought to the submissions of the learned counsel, but do not find any merit in them. Maman Singh and others had sought the Tribunal''s intervention in 1993 for their retrospective promotion. O.A. No. 1006/HR/93 filed by them was allowed by the Tribunal on 21.2.1997. The petitioner could have filed a similar application within one year from the date of accrual of cause of action, i.e., 24.12.1993. However, the fact of the matter is that he did not file such an application within the period of limitation and chose to do so after six years. Even after the decision of the application filed by Maman Singh and others, he did not make efforts to seek relief from the Tribunal within the next one year. He should consider himself fortunate that the Tribunal did not dismiss his application as time-barred and granted relief by directing the respondents to give the benefit of deemed promotion with effect from 1.4.1992.

In our opinion, there is no merit in the petitioner''s claim for grant of the benefit of arrears with effect from the date of deemed promotion and the same deserves to be rejected because he had not worked on the post of Assistant Superintendent Telegraph Traffic with effect from 1.4.1992. If the respondents had challenged the impugned order, we may have in validated the same on the ground that the Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to entrain the application filed after six years of the accrual of cause of action, but we refrain from doing so because the respondents have not challenged that order.

For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is dismissed.

Writ petition dismissed.