AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
In the revised list no one appeared for the petitioner. Sri Deepak Verma, learned Advocate appeared for the respondents.
By means of this petition, petitioner seeks following reliefs:-
I) Issue Writ or Mandamus commanding the respondents to award the due regular promotions to the petitioner in SK Grade-I since 1983, Supervisor BS Grade-2 since 1988 and Supervisor BS Grade-I since 1993 with all its benefits along with the arrears applying the 40% roaster and the Review DPC should be constituted by including a SC/ST member as provided under the Rules.
II) Issue Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to refix the petitioners pension and also pay the arrears of the pension after due fixation.
From the facts as born out from the record, it appears that initially petitioner filed O.A. No. 1720 of 2002 before Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad claiming following reliefs:-
(I) An order or direction be issued to the respondents to release all the items of my retirement benefit like GPF, CGE, GIS, Leave Encasement, arrears of 2 Financial Upgradation in ACP Scheme, un-disputed pay and allowances, D.A. arrears, unpaid bonus etc. together with penal interest at the present prevailing market rates.
(II) An order or direction be issued to the respondents to consider my pending case of promotion to SK-I and subsequently to BS-I Grade and pay the resultant arrears thereon from the dates of actual promotion and retire the applicant in BS-I Grade and not SK-II.
Tribunal vide order dated 11.10.2002 disposed of the said O.A. by giving direction to the authority concerned to pass appropriate orders with regard to payment of retiral benefits due to the petitioner. It is to state here that in the aforesaid order the Tribunal had also acknowledged the fact that learned counsel for the petitioner had abandoned his claim with regard to promotion or financial upgradation under A.C.P. Scheme and it is said that the O.A. is confined only for payment or retiral benefits. Petitioner stood retired way back on 22.2.2001.
It appears that claim with regard to promotion which was abandoned by the petitioner in the aforesaid O.A. was again agitated by means of another O.A. No. 332 of 2003. In the aforesaid O.A. petitioner is said to have filed delay condonation application.
Learned Tribunal vide its judgment and order dated 29.9.2008 has dismissed the said O.A. No. 332 of 2008 primarily on the ground that petitioner could not satisfactorily explained the delay in filing the present O.A. before the Tribunal. While dismissing the O.A. learned Tribunal further said that petitioner once having abandoned his claim with regard to his promotion and no liberty having been granted to him, cannot now re-agitate the same issue once again by means of present O.A.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that order impugned before us does not suffer from any error so as to exercise the extraordinary powers as conferred on this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Writ petition accordingly fails and it is hereby dismissed.
No orders as to costs.