K K SOLANKI Vs. MEMBER SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these petitions are disposed of by this common Judgment as they are arising out of the impugned Judgment and order dated 12.10.1999 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench (for short "the Tribunal) in O.A. No.115 of 1997.

(2.) Special Civil Application No.1265 of 2000 is filed by the Union of India and the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax against the impugned Judgment and order dated 12.10.1990 passed by the Tribunal whereby the learned Tribunal allowed the O.A.No. 115 of 1997 filed by the respondent original applicant directing the respondent present petitioner to carry out the exercise of stepping up of the pay of the applicant at par with his junior with effect from 5.8.1982 within 3 months from the date of receipt of the order and to rectify the anomaly in the pay of the applicant with effect from 5.8.1982 within 3 months from the date of receipt of the order and to rectify the anomaly in the pay of the applicant with effect from 5.8.1982 and refix his pay thereafter in accordance with the prevailing rules and the applicant is entitled to the arrears of salary of one year prior to the date of filing the O.A. and give such benefit to the applicant, including the arrears of salary of one year prior to the date of filing of Application.

(3.) Ms.Bhatt, learned Counsel, appearing for the petitioner firstly submitted that there was gross delay on the part of the applicant in approaching the Tribunal, therefore, on the ground of delay of more than 3 years the Tribunal should have rejected the Application. We do not find such submission made before the Tribunal. However, it was sought to be contended by Ms.Bhatt that the contention regarding delay was raised before the Tribunal, but unfortunately it was not dealt with by the Tribunal in its order. Apart from the fact that no such specific contention is raised in Special Civil Application No.1265 of 2000, filed by the petitioner, we are of the considered opinion that if such contention was raised before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has not dealt with such contention in its order then the petitioner should have first approached the Tribunal by way of Review and invited the decision of the Tribunal on such point as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v/s. RAMDAS NAYAK reported in AIR 1982 SC 1249. Under the circumstances the contention of Ms.Bhatt has to be rejected.