PRAMA CHAKRABORTY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of filing the present writ application the writ petitioner has challenged the legality, validity and constitutionality of the judgement and order dated 30.07.2018 passed in Original Application No.041/00182/2017, whereby and whereunder the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, dismissed the prayer for promotion and transfer as they found no ground to entertain the matter and in their opinion, the case was absolutely barred by limitation.

(2.) The petitioner, Smt. Prama Chakraborty, is represented by her father, Sri Praloy Sharan Chakraborty. This court, at the very outset, had apprised Mr. Chakraborty that the court would provide him a learned counsel of his choice, if he so desired, but he preferred to argue the case in person. As such, on the prayer of the petitioner, this court has proceeded to dispose of the case at the stage of admission.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner, a postal assistant, that on 14.03.2008 she was declared qualified in the all India Postal Department written examination for Departmental promotion to the post of inspector (for short, "IPO"). She underwent the requisite departmental training and after completion of the said training the petitioner had submitted a representation on 22.07.2008 to the Department, the respondents herein, to give effect of the above promotion to the post of IPO with effect from 26.02.2008 i.e., the date of the result of the written examination for the said post. According to the petitioner, without effecting the formal promotion order of the petitioner, she was directed to work temporarily as the IPO at Santirbazar, a place of 84 km away from the place of work of the petitioner at Agartala, but she expressed her unwillingness by letter dated 22.07.2009. The petitioner had again prayed to the Department by her letter dated 28.07.2009 for effecting the appointment to the promotional post of IPO with effect from 01.07.2008, when she fulfilled the criteria to get appointment to the post. She has referred an office memorandum dated 30.09.2009 issued by the DOPT, Government of India, for posting the husband-and-wife at the same station. The petitioner had again submitted a representation to the respondents to post her at Agartala as the IPO, appreciating her certain genuine difficulties, and simultaneously considering that her husband, a central government officer, was permanently posted at Agatala in the office of the Accountant General, Government of India. But the respondents concerned on 18.01.2010 had posted her as the IPO at Shantirbazar, with further stipulation that the appointment to the post of IPO would become effective from the date of joining of the petitioner to that office. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 18.01.2010, the petitioner had submitted an appeal dated 31.03.2010 to the highest functionary of the Department for setting aside the above order of posting and for posting her to Agatala, and also for giving effect of her promotion to the post of IPO with effect from 01.07.2008 as stated above, and since then, the petitioner had been pursuing her claim, even to the President of India. At last, the petitioner had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench.