UNION OF INDIA Vs. R. S. DHILLON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Union of India has approached this court through this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for assailing the judgment/order dated 06.04.2016 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') whereby the Original Application No.169/2013 preferred by the respondent Shri R.S. Dhillon was accepted and the appellants were directed to extend all the service benefits to him by ignoring the uncommunicated ACRs.

(2.) The thrust of arguments advanced by Mr. Ashok Chhangani and Mr. Avin Chhangani, Advocates, representing the appellants, was that the respondent agitated the service benefits on the ground that the entry of 'Good' was not communicated after a significant delay and therefore, he is not entitled to the relief claimed for on the ground of delay and that the learned Tribunal, ought not to have interfered in the matter and the original application should have been rejected on the ground of latches alone. Learned counsel Mr. Chhangani further submitted that there was no plea in the original application that the disputed entries had not been communicated to the respondent employee and therefore also, he was not entitled to the relief claimed for. In support of their contentions, learned counsel for the appellants, placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Jagdish Pandey [Civil Appeal No.365/2007 in decided on 08.07.2010].

(3.) Per contra, Mr. Sandeep Shah, learned counsel representing the respondent, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by Mr. Chhangani. He urged that the bogey of delay, which is raised by the appellant Union of India for opposing the claim of the respondent is absolutely unsubstantiated because the impugned order has been passed in the third round of litigation forced upon the respondent, who is now 71 years of age. He was denied promotion from level T-7 to T-9 under the Career Progression Scheme for Technical personnel on the basis of the uncommunicated entries in the ACRs even though he had become eligible for promotion to level T-7-8 in the year 1996 itself.