UNION OF INDIA Vs. VASUDHA GUPTA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the present petition, petitioner/UOI has challenged the judgment dated 16.1.2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'The Tribunal) in O.A. No. 2202/2013 whereby the Tribunal has allowed the aforesaid O.A. filed by respondent no.1 herein.

(2.) MR . Sameer Aggarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal has failed to take into consideration the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner in the counter affidavit filed before the Tribunal that the OA filed by respondent no.1 herein is patently barred by limitation as the cause of action had arisen in favour of respondent no.1 at the time of promotion of her junior i.e., respondent no.2 herein in the senior time scale grade of IIS Group À' against the vacancies for the year 1994 -95 on 29.1.1997. Counsel reiterated that the Tribunal has failed to decide the preliminary objection of the petitioner as the respondent no.1 had approached the Tribunal after a gap of 17 years. Elaborating his arguments further, counsel submits that even after 1997, seniority lists were prepared in the years 1999, 2004 as also in 2009 but respondent no.1 did not deem it appropriate to challenge the same. On the merits of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal has misread the judgment relied upon by respondent no.1 in the case of M.Nagaraj and others vs. Union of India and others, reported at : 2006 (8) SCC 212 and accepted the same. Counsel submits that the case of M.Nagaraj (supra) would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the first seniority list was prepared in the year 1997, as per which the name of respondent no.2 was shown at sr.no.27 and the name of respondent no.1 is shown at sr.no.37. Copy of the list dated 29.1.1997 has been placed on record. It is contended that respondent no.2 was given promotion based on the Recruitment Rules which have been filed at pages 99 to 104 of the paper book, as per Schedule III Sr.No.6 reads as under: -

(3.) COUNSEL further submits that the Tribunal has failed to consider the judgment in the case of Indra Sawhney and others vs. Union of India and others: : 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217, which is applicable to the facts of the present case. Para 7 reads as under: -