RAJAYYA BOSI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition the legality of the order dated 26.2.1998 made by the Central Administrative Tribunal in Review Application No. 54 of 1994 is under challenge. Following are the two points which arise for consideration :

(2.) A brief resume of facts is necessary to appreciate the above points raised on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner filed O.A. No. 577 of 1992 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') claiming promotion to the post of Assistant Superintendent of Post -offices with effect from 1984 when his juniors were given promotion. His case before the Tribunal was that during the relevant period, certain disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and because of pendency of such proceedings, he was not considered for promotion. Later when the proceedings were terminated in his favour, although he was entitled to be considered for promotion it was not done. Case of the Postal department before the Tribunal was that the petitioner's representations were rejected by the Director General and since he was not confirmed in the post of Inspector of Post -offices, question of consideration of his case for promotion to the post of Assistant Superintendent of Post -offices did not arise. The Tribunal after hearing by its order dated 24.6.1994 (Annexure -4) accepted the prayer of the petitioner and directed the authorities to consider his case for promotion and grant back wages if he was found suitable for promotion, In paragraph -6 of the order, the Tribunal observed as follows :

(3.) FOR all the reasons aforesaid, the Tribunal has no power to entertain the review application as admittedly it was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. The Tribunal has accordingly acted without jurisdiction in entertaining the review application. As the order dated 12.5.1997 condoning the delay is without jurisdiction the impugned substantive order dated 26.2.1998 has to be set aside. We order accordingly. In the result, the writ petition is allowed.