SS NIRMAL Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWO errors or mistakes pointed out in paragraphs 1, 2 and 5 of the review application filed by the applicant-petitioner are required to be corrected. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6708/2007 was field by the respondent and not by the petitioner and that the date of retirement of the petitioner is 31st January, 2003 and not 31st March, 2003. Accordingly paragraphs 2, 4 and 5 in the order dated 2nd June, 2011 will be substituted as under:

(2.) THE aforesaid corrections are directed to be carried out and the corrected order dated 2nd June, 2011 will be placed on record and uploaded on the internet.

(3.) THE aforesaid contentions though attractive do not merit re-consideration/review and do not make any difference to the final outcome. In the writ petition filed by the petitioner on or about 25th May, 2011, the orders dated 9th July, 2008 and 4th November, 2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in OA No. 693/2006 and RA No. 147/2008 were made subject matter of challenge. As per the applicant- petitioner himself he was appointed to officiate as EE(Civil) temporarily on ad hoc basis vide order dated 3rd November, 1999 with the direction that a separate order would follow with regard to the date of regular promotion. Separate order was issued under office order dated 28th September, 2001 where the date of regular promotion was shown as 31st March, 1995. THE applicant-petitioner claims that he is entitled to be considered for upgradation/promotion to the non-functional Junior Administrative Grade after completion of five years of regular service. As per the applicant-petitioner, he had completed the said five years in terms of office order dated 28th September, 2001 in the year 2000. THErefore, there was delay of nearly six years in approaching the tribunal as the original application was filed in 2006. In fact, the applicant-petitioner did not make any such claim till the date of his retirement on 31st January, 2003. Memorandum dated 10th November, 2004 that the applicant- petitioner was promoted as EE(Civil) with effect from 3rd November, 1999 did not make him better off. In these circumstances, we feel that the delay and laches on the part of the applicant-petitioner disentitles him to any relief.