PRABHU DAYAL Vs. C P W D

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Despite the last opportunity granted to the petitioner to file response to the affidavit of respondent, response has not been filed. Consequently, the right of the petitioner to file the response to the affidavit of the respondent dated 12th October, 2009 is closed. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 1st November, 2006 in OA No.399 of 2006 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, in Prabhu Dayal v. Central Public Works Department and other declining the plea of the petitioner to grant him promotion to the post of Assistant Painter and allowing the petitioner to make a representation to the respondent for grant of benefit under the ACP Scheme.

(2.) The petitioner has claimed promotion to the post of Assistant Painter from the post of Beldar with effect from 1988 and has also claimed promotion to the next post of Painter from Assistant Painter. According to the petitioner in 1988, DPC had recommended empanelling him for promotion to the post of Assistant Painter. His grievance is that despite empanelment in 1988 he has not been promoted. The petitioner asserted that in 1993, the Superintending Engineer, CPWD, had asked the Executive Engineer to furnish information regarding the employees who were qualified for promotion to the post of Assistant Painter and the name of the petitioner was not furnished.

(3.) The petitioner's plea is that he has not been promoted and the post of Assistant Painter has been abolished by order dated 9th September, 2003. After the abolition of the post of Assistant Painter, the petitioner has sought promotion to the said post from 1988 on the ground that he was empanelled for promotion in 1988. The claim of the petitioner for promotion since 1988 was opposed by the respondents contending inter alia that though the petitioner was found fit for promotion to the post of Assistant Painter, however, since the post has been abolished he is not entitled for promotion. The respondents also raised the plea about the limitation and opposed the application of the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the petition. It was contended that no good and sufficient cause has been shown by the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the petition seeking promotion since 1988.