JATINDER KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 27.10.2016 (Annexure P-22) passed by respondent No.4-Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") dismissing the Original Application (OA) filed by the petitioner in limine being time barred. Further, a prayer has been made for quashing the orders dated 21.12.1999 (Annexure P-6), dated 27.10.2010 (Annexure P-8), dated 7.12.2010 (Annexure P-9), dated 13.5.2011 (Annexure P-10) to the extent showing respondent No.3 to have been promoted earlier to the petitioner, dated 1.1.2015 (Annexure P-11) by ignoring the claim of the petitioner and also the seniority list (Annexure P-12) showing respondent No.3 above the petitioner in the cadre of Technical Grade-I. Further, a writ of mandamus has been sought directing respondents No.1 and 2 to revise the seniority and give promotion to the petitioner from the date, respondent No.3 was promoted to the post of Technical Grade-I and to consider his case before the promotion of respondent No.3.

(2.) Put shortly, the facts necessary for adjudication of the instant petition as narrated therein may be noticed. The petitioner was appointed as Khalasi on 15.1.1991 and was promoted as Helper on 1.3.1993. He was further promoted as Technical Grade-III on 10.10.2007 and after holding test, the petitioner was promoted as Technical Grade-II vide order dated 13.5.2011 (Annexure P-10). On 1.2.2015, he was promoted as Technical Grade-I. Similarly, respondent No.3 was appointed as Khalasi vide appointment letter dated 4.9.1987 (Annexure P-1) and was promoted as Helper vide order dated 1.6.1989 (Annexure P-2). On 27.4.1991, respondent No.3 absented from duty and had immigrated to Saudi Arabia and did not join duty for five years. However, on 1.5.1996, respondent No.3 moved an application for allowing him to join on duty and vide order dated 8.5.1996 (Annexure P-3), he was allowed to join the duty as Khalasi Helper pending enquiry. Respondent No.3 made a representation dated 27.12.1996 (Annexure P-4) for not downgrading one step below which was rejected vide order dated 21.1.1997 (Annexure P-5). Thus, respondent No.3 was allowed to be appointed as Khalasi, one step down than the helper whereas the petitioner was promoted as Helper on 1.3.1993. One Shri R.S. Aggarwal, acting for Chief Works Manager, Jagadhri vide order dated 21.12.1999 (Annexure P-6) ordered that respondent No.3 be promoted as Helper Khalasi by re-promoting him on his original post. Respondent No.3 was promoted as Technical Grade-III vide order dated 26.10.2009, after two years of promotion of the petitioner on 10.10.2007 to the said post. However, the request of respondent No.3 was rejected vide order dated 10.10.2009 (Annexure P-7) and, therefore, the petitioner was senior to respondent No.3 in Technical Grade-III. Respondent No.3 applied and the Assistant Construction Manager, Kalak vide order dated 27.10.2010 (Annexure P-8) amended the order dated 26/28.10.2010 to the extent that respondent No.3 is granted promotion w.e.f. 31.3.2008 and he would not be entitled to salary. Further, the order, Annexure P-8, was revised vide order dated 7.12.2010 (Annexure P-9). In Jan., 2011, a test was held and on the basis thereof, the petitioner and respondent No.3 were promoted on the post of Technical Grade-II vide order dated 13.5.2011 (Annexure P-10). Respondent No.3 was kept senior to the petitioner. Further, respondent No.3 was promoted as Technical Grade-I vide order dated 1.1.2015 (Annexure P- 11). However, the petitioner was promoted as Technical Grade-I vide order dated 1.2.2015. On the basis of the promotion orders, the respondents have made the seniority list (Annexure P-12). Thereafter, the petitioner sought various information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 which was provided to him vide letters dated 19.5.2016, 13.6.2016, 3.8.2016 and 9.9.2010 (Annexures P-13 to P-16, respectively). The petitioner moved a representation dated 27.2.2016 (Annexure P-17) followed by the reminders dated 15.2.2016 (Annexure P-18) and dated 1.4.2016 (Annexure P-19) against the seniority, but to no effect. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed OA No. 060/00951/2016 on 29.9.2016 (Annexure P-20) before the Tribunal. Since the OA was barred by time, the petitioner also filed an application dated 19.10.2016 (Annexure P-21) for condonation of delay. The Tribunal vide order dated 27.10.2016 (Annexure P-22) dismissed the OA in limine being time barred. The application for condonation of delay was also dismissed. Hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, we do not find any merit in the writ petition.