J. D. SANDHU Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition in the nature of writ of certiorari has been filed by petitioner-J.D.Sandhu for quashing of order dtd. 25/10/2013 (Annexure P-2) rendered by Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred to as "Tribunal"), in Original Application No.PB-729 of 2013 titled "J. D. Sandhu v. Union of India, and another" (hereinafter to be referred to as "OA"), vide which petitioner had challenged the order dtd. 28/7/2010 (Annexure P-12) passed by respondent No.2 whereby the promotion to the post of Inspector "Selection Post" was denied to the petitioner and the senior candidates were promoted, thus, said application was dismissed by the Tribunal. Further, petitioner has challenged the order dtd. 1/5/2014 (Annexure P-5) rendered by the Tribunal, in terms of which, Review Application No.110 of 2013 moved by petitioner for review of order dtd. 25/10/2013 (Annexure P-2), has been dismissed.

(2.) Petitioner's case in brief is that he joined respondent- Department as Lower Division Clerk (LDC) on 14/6/1965 and earned various promotions as Upper Division Clerk (UDC) on 30/12/1969, Tax Assistant on 10/8/1978, Head Clerk on 21/7/1983, Supervisor on 19/5/1988, Inspector Income Tax on 19/8/1988 and Income Tax Officer on 13/5/1996 and retired as such on 31/5/2005. Initially petitioner had filed a representation dtd. 10/12/1990 seeking promotion as Inspector Income Tax with effect from 5/6/1984, however, said representation was rejected by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, vide letter dtd. 26/3/1991. Thereafter O.A. No. 662 of 1991 was filed by the petitioner on 31/5/1991 which was decided by the Tribunal, vide order dtd. 11/10/1999 and directions were given to respondent No.3 as under:-

(3.) Respondents in their reply have categorically contended that previously petitioner had filed O.A. No.898-PB-2010 before the Tribunal, claiming promotion as Inspector from the earlier date, which was dismissed on 6/9/2011. Thereafter petitioner had challenged the decision of Tribunal by filing CWP No.21822 of 2012, which was disposed of on 11/3/2013 while granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Tribunal again. It is also contended that petitioner's representation pursuant to earlier directions had already been rejected on 7/4/2000 and another representation filed by the petitioner after a gap of more than nine years was disposed of on 28/7/2010. It is further contended that petitioner had filed original application claiming promotion as Inspector of Income Tax with effect from 5/6/1984 and further promotion as ITO, ACIT and DCIT alongwith pay and allowances but in the said application he had not impleaded the persons likely to be affected by a decision in his favour and further did not render any explanation as to why they were not necessary parties. The said O.A. was dismissed on the grounds of limitation and non-impleadment of necessary parties. As a matter of fact petitioner had approached the Tribunal after a period of 26 years seeking promotion as Inspector of Income Tax with effect from 5/6/1984 and further seeking exchange of carried forward vacancies of STs for the recruitment years 1974, 1975, 1976 and 1977 after a gap of 33 years and as such cause of action, if any, accrued in favour of petitioner in the year 1984 and seeking claim of said benefit by filing the O.A. in 2010, said claim is barred under Sec. 21 of The Administratives Tribunals Act, 1985 as well as delay and latches. It is also contended that promotion to the post of Inspector of Income Tax had been made by following Income Tax Department (Inspector) Recruitment Rules, 1969 (as amended in 1986), which were prevalent at the relevant time. It is further contended that the seniority of the SC/ST candidates has been correctly determined and the roster points are not the seniority points as these points do not determine seniority. It is further contended that DPCs were held as per guidelines and petitioner was rightly promoted and given seniority as per rules and no reserved vacancy is filled from unreserved candidates. In this manner, respondents have categorically denied the claim of petitioner and prayed for dismissal of petition.