P C GUPTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NOBODY appears on behalf of the petitioner and we find from the record that this Writ Petition was earlier dismissed for non-prosecution on 01.09.2009. It was restored on an application moved by the petitioner thereafter. In these circumstances, instead of dismissing the petition for non-appearance again, we have decided to proceed with the matter on merits with the help of learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) THE issue involved in this writ petition is in a narrow compass. THE petitioner, an employee of Central Railway, was promoted as Telecommunication Inspector Grade-IIII in the year 1974. THEreafter he was promoted in T.C.I. Grade-II in the year 1983 and thereafter as T.C.I. Grade-I with effect from 3.5.1987 along with Shri B.R. Lodh and Shri R.K. Sharma. He was shown as senior to the said two persons.

(3.) NATURALLY, because of local officiating promotions accorded to other i.e. to Shri Lodh and Shri Sharma as TCI Grade-I in the year 1985, they were also given higher scale of the said post. On this basis, the petitioner made a grievance that his juniors started drawing higher salary and therefore, he should also have been upgraded. He represented in this regard in the year 1987 which remained un-replied. Thereafter, he approached Central Administrative Tribunal in the year 1996 by means of an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act claiming this relief. The application was contested by the respondents by raising preliminary objection that it was barred by limitation on the ground that higher scale was granted to the two other officials way back in the year 1987 and the petitioner had approached the Tribunal much belated. It was also pointed out that in fact representation of the petitioner was rejected vide letter dated 27.04.1994 and from this date also the petitioner did not approach within stipulated period of one year which is the period prescribed under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act. On merits also the case of the petitioner was contested stating that when local officiating promotion was given to the two officers that would not justify stepping up of pay of the petitioner.