B. VIJAYALAKSHMI Vs. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR AND ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION (ESIC)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner preferred an Original Application being O.A. No. 1511 of 2013 before the Madras Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal ("the Tribunal" for short), seeking to quash the Office Order No. 15(E) of 1997 conveyed under the first respondent's letter No. TNR/AO -8(12) 96 - Reg. dated 10.01.1997, conveying therein, the date of her regularisation in the cadre of LDC as 14.08.1996 and for a direction to regularise her services with effect from 01.02.1991. In the said Original Application, the petitioner further sought the relief of quashing the subsequent order dated 25.02.2005, whereby, her regularisation in the cadre of Stenographer with effect from 15.08.1999 was conveyed and also, a direction to regularise her services in the cadre of Stenographer with effect from 09.11.1993, as granted to one Shamim Ahmed Hussain. The petitioner, in the said Original Application, had also sought a direction to the second respondent to promote her to the cadre of Personal Assistant on account of automatic promotion of all regular Stenographers in service upto 24.12.1996 and thereafter, to the cadre of Personal Assistant granted vide Office Order dated 19.01.2001 by again placing her much below one Shamim Ahmed Hussain at Serial No. 23. Lastly, in the said Original Application, the petitioner had also sought a direction to place her at the appropriate place in the Draft All India Seniority List of Personal Assistants as on 31.03.2011, issued vide Memorandum No. 24 -/14/7/2009 -Estt.II dated 30.06.2011 by revising the same.

(2.) THE aforesaid Original Application was filed in February 2012. The Tribunal, having adverted to all the points raised on merit as well as on consideration of delay and laches, dismissed the application for condonation of delay of 15 years, as not maintainable. Consequently, the Original Application, which, at the stage of Diary No. 1372 of 2012 was also dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition, seeking the afore -stated reliefs, by quashing the impugned order dated 25.10.2013 passed by the Tribunal.

(3.) THE case of the petitioner before this Court is that she was appointed on compassionate basis in the cadre of Lower Division Clerk (L.D.C.) vide order dated 10.12.1989 with effect from 01.02.1989. Thereafter, she was entitled to regularisation in the cadre of L.D.C. with effect from 01.02.1991 on passing the Type Test. However, she was regularised vide DPC proceedings dated 06.01.1997 with effect from 14.08.1996. The further case of the petitioner is that she had qualified in the Departmental Test for the post of Stenographer on 25.09.1993 along with one Shamim Ahmed Hussain, who was promoted as Stenographer with effect from 09.11.1993. However, she was denied promotion to the post of Stenographer. It is the further case of the petitioner that vide Office Order dated 19.01.2001, all regular Stenographers upto 24.12.1996 were automatically promoted to the cadre of Personal Assistant, however, she was denied the said promotion as well. The petitioner was promoted in the cadre of Personal Assistant on regular basis with effect from 31.12.2000 and as such, her seniority position in the All India list of Personal Assistants as on 31.03.2011 was prejudicially affected. The petitioner further submits that she has made a number of representations from 1994 to March 2011 to the respondents 1 and 2. However, none of her representations was settled. The petitioner, thereafter, obtained information under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, wherein, it was stated that it was difficult to inform her about the availability of vacancies in the cadre of L.D.C. Thus, the period of limitation ought to have been reckoned only from 22.03.2011.