RAM SINGH Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY virtue of the impugned order dated 08.09.2011, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi has dismissed the petitioner's original application No. 2844/2011 on the ground of delay. The reasoning adopted by the Tribunal is set out in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the impugned order. The same reads as under:- "6. At the very outset, we find that the OA, as filed, is not maintainable under the provisions of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 being barred by limitation. It is evident from the averments made in the OA read with representation dated 11.02.2011 that the applicant has challenged the promotion of many persons who, according to him, joined AHFQ Clerical Service later on him but were given promotion as UDC before him, although, according to him, their probation was lifted after his probation was lifted, i.e., between June, 1984 to June 1985 whereas the applicant s probation was lifted as on 17.05.1984. However, this list is not supported by any official documents. He is further aggrieved by being promoted to the Assistant Grade w.e.f. 31.05.2004 after completion of nearly 15 years of service in the grade of UDC while he states that persons whose probation was lifted later than him were given their promotion to the Assistant Grade on completion of 8 years of service. Lastly, he is aggrieved by the promotion of several persons to the post of Section Officer w.e.f. 27.11.2009 but, according to him, he was not considered for promotion to the said post. He has attached a copy of the provisional seniority list of UDCs dated 19.08.1996 (Annexure P6) but has not attached any orders of promotion of any juniors as Section Officers. His grievance against the promotions of persons allegedly junior to him (having completed their probation after him), arose several years ago, when they were given promotion to the Assistant Grade and later to the grade of Section Officer, and he should have agitated it at the appropriate time with the respondents and thereafter, if necessary, an application should have been made to the Tribunal, after exhausting the available remedies with the respondents.

(2.) WE find that one of the points urged by the petitioner was that his probation had been completed prior to that of his colleagues, but he had been promoted as Assistant in the year 2004 after 15 years, whereas his said colleagues had been promoted much earlier, only on completion of 8 years of service. It is further indicated in the impugned order itself, part of which has been extracted above, that the petitioner is challenging the provisional seniority list which was circulated in 1996.