POONAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents through video conference.

(2.) The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs as formulated by the petitioner-

(3.) The short facts according to the petitioner, a Teacher in the Kendriya Vidyalaya, are that on the recommendation of Departmental Promotion Committee held on 4/8/2006, 12 PGTS, 39 TGTS, 23PRTS including petitioner and 15 other categories of teachers were appointed/promoted to senior scale from the date mentioned against each of them respectively. The petitioner as PRT Sr. scale Rs.5500.00175-9000/- was appointed from 1/11/2005 vide letter dtd. 29/8/2006. The option clause was however not incorporated in the order of promotion dtd. 29/8/2006, despite which the petitioner vide her letter dtd. 29/11/2006 sent her option for fixation of pay after grant of senior scale from 1/1/2006. By office order dtd. 22/2/2007, the petitioner's pay was fixed in senior scale which was less by Rs.175.00 than the old scale as on 1/1/2006. In the case of one Sunita Kumari who was junior to the petitioner in the same notification, the pay was fixed in senior scale at Rs.6025.00 as on 1/1/2006. The petitioner filed two representations dtd. 26/7/2007 and 24/9/2010. Ultimately, the request of the petitioner was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner (Respondent no.3) by letter dated 12/15/1/2016 on the ground that the petitioner had not exercised her option in time. Against the rejection order, the petitioner filed O.A. No. 050/00148/2016 on 11/2/2016 but the same was dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in limine on grounds of inordinate delay in approaching the Tribunal. It was observed, inter alia, that even though the petitioner's pay was fixed in the year 2007, the same was not assailed for several years and the petitioner acted as a fence-sitter until the decision of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 568/2011 dtd. 12/3/2015 deciding the case of another similarly affected person. The Tribunal was of the view that the order dated 12/15/1/2016 impugned before it did not create a new cause of action and, accordingly, held that the O.A. was barred by limitation prescribed under Sec. 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985.