P C YADAV, S/O NAND RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA; CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL, RAJASTHAN CIRCLE; DIRECTOR POSTAL SERVICES, RAJASTHAN; SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES CHITTORGARH DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ application assails order dated 29.07.2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur bench Jodhpur dismissing O.A.No.89 of 2013. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was wrongly denied crossing of the efficiency bar in 1991. If the DPC had been held in April 1991 in accordance with the time schedule mentioned in Fundamental Rule 25, the punishment for reduction of pay ordered subsequently could not have been a bar when the DPC met belatedly in September 1991 and before which the punishment intervened. The petitioner cannot be visited with the consequences of a delayed DPC. It was next submitted that punishment of 'Censure' in 1989 could also not have been a bar in 1991 under the instructions of the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was wrongly rejected in 1992 without considering all his grievances. Similarly, the revision filed by him under Rule 29 A of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules (hereinafter referred to "the Rules") was also rejected without proper application of mind. The mercy petition filed in 2007 under Rule 29 A of the Rules remained pending and only on 15.10.2011 he was informed that there was no provision for filing a mercy petition. O.A.No.322 of 2012 was then filed when the petitioner was directed to move the Appellate Authority which again rejected his claim on 09.01.2013. The submission therefore was that there was absolutely no justification for denying him crossing of the efficiency bar in 1991 itself.

(2.) Counsel for the respondents has opposed the writ petition submitting that the candidature of the petitioner was considered unsuccessfully in 1991, 1992 and 1993. He was permitted to cross the efficiency bar in 1994. After the appeal was rejected in 1992, the revision was filed in 2006 beyond the statutory period of six months with no provision for condoning delay. Similarly, Rule 29 A provided for review if any new material or evidence which could not be produced or was not available at the time of passing of the original order and which has an effect by changing the nature of the case could have been preferred and there was no provision for any mercy petition.

(3.) We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties.