Union of India (UOI) and Others vs Sanjiv Mahendrakumar Joshi

B.J. Shethna, J.—All these petitions are disposed of by this common order as they arise out of the common judgment and order dated 28th February, 2006 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal allowing M.As nos.76 of 2005 to 86 of 2005 filed by the respondents-original applicants.

The original applicants passed the departmental examination for Inspector in the cadre of Upper Division Clerk and was granted two advance increments. The junior passed the said examination after his promotion as Tax Assistant. He was drawing higher pay. For removing this anomaly, the applicants approached the learned Tribunal by way of Original Applications which have been allowed by the learned Tribunal by its impugned common judgment and order dated 28-2-2006 whereby the learned Tribunal directed the respondents and present petitioners to re-examine the matter in consultation with the concerned Ministries and if the decision is taken in their favour, they may also decide to regularize the past cases. The exercise was to be undertaken at the Ministry level within four months from the date of receipt of the order, and thereafter, the cases of the applicants were to be considered and decided within two months thereof.

Ms. Mauna Bhatt, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that their junior was promoted in 1999, however, the applicants approached the learned Tribunal only in 2005 after a period of six years. Thus, therefore, on the short ground of delay and laches, the Tribunal should have rejected all the applications without going into the merits of the case. She also submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in rejecting their contention regarding delay and laches on the ground that it was a continuous cause. We do not find any substance or merit in these submissions. Time and again, the Honourable Supreme Court as well as this Court have said that at least the State and Central Government should not take up such technical plea of limitation, etc., as substantial justice is required to be done and not the technical one. In spite of this, such contention was raised before the Tribunal, but rightly rejected. In our considered opinion, the learned Tribunal was absolutely justified in entertaining the applications on merits as it was a continuous cause.

Ms. Bhatt then submitted that on merits also the learned Tribunal committed error in allowing the applications. There is no substance in this submission. When the junior of the applicants was given promotion and paid revised pay- scale, then the applicants were also entitled for the same.

Having carefully gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal allowing all the applications, we are of the considered opinion that while allowing the applications by a common order, the learned Tribunal has not committed any error either on facts or law, much less jurisdictional error which calls for interference by this Court in its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. Though this petition is labelled both under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, strictly speaking it is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the scope of which is very narrow and limited. It is very well settled law that even error on facts or law cannot be corrected by this Court in its jurisdiction under Article 227.

In view of the above discussion, all these petitions fail and are hereby summarily dismissed.