GHISALAL CHHAVRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Art.227 of the Constitution challenges the judgment and order dated October 21, 1997 passed by the Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal at Ahmedabad rejecting Original Application No. 355 of 1997 with Misc. Application No. 804 of 1997 filed by the petitioner herein for challenging the seniority of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 herein for the combined cadre of Booking Clerks and Ticket Checkers in the Western Railway as fixed by respondent No. 2 in the year 1985.

(2.) . The Tribunal has dismissed the application on the ground that the decision taken by the department as far back as in the year 1985 treating respondent Nos. 3 and 4 as senior to the petitioner is challenged before the Tribunal after a long lapse of 12 years and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to take up this dispute. As regards the petitioner's contention that he had made representations in the years 1985 and 1988, the Tribunal has given a finding that there is no material on the file to show that the representations made in the years 1985 and 1988 had at all been received by the concerned authority. The Tribunal has referred to letter dated 23-8-1996 from the Divisional Railway Manager, Ajmer, respondent No. 2 herein, addressed to the Station Superintendent, Ajmer asking whether the petitioner's alleged representations dated 18-3-1985, 11-3-1988, 11-7-1994 and 14-5-1995 were received from the petitioner and in reply thereto, in his letter dated 30-11-1996, the Station Superintendent stated that representation dated 11-7-1994 and 14-5-1995 had been received, which would naturally mean that the representations dated 18-3-1985 and 11-3-1988 were not received. Hence, the finding of fact given by the Tribunal cannot be said to be arbitrary or perverse.

(3.) Mr. Pathak, learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the petitioner had made representations in the years 1985 and 1988 through proper channel and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be blamed if the petitioner's immediate superior at Marwar Junction did not forward the representations to the Competent Authority. As regards the petitioner's plea on this factual aspect, we are prepared to assume that the petitioner had made such representations in the year 1985 and 1988. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner concedes that admittedly the petitioner had not received any reply to any such representations and that for the first time the petitioner received reply dated 25-10-1996 that the petitioner's representations of the year 1994 and 1995 were rejected on the ground that the panel in question was published as far back as in the year 1985 and the petitioner had not made his representation in time.