1. The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against order dated 29.11.2000 passed by the Chandigarh Bench of the Cen tral Administrative Tribunal, rejecting the claim made by the petitioner on two grounds. Firstly it has been held that the cause of action, if any, accrued to the petitioner in the year 1987 and the OA no. 1155/JK/97 was filed after ten years which was found to be hopelessly time barred. Secondly, on merits it has been found that petitioner joined as a Group-D employee with the respon dents with effect from August, 1983 and in order to become eligible for promo tion to the post of Clerk Grade-II, he needed to have five years service in Group-D to his credit. In the year 1987 when the departmental examination for promotion to the post of Clerk Grade-II was held, he was not eligible because he had obviously less than five years of service. In the year 1991 he suc ceeded in the examination and was accordingly accorded promotion in the aforesaid grade. 2. Facts are not in dispute. The peti tioner joined as a Canteen Salesman on 21.04.1981 and with effect from 16.06.1982 to 19.08.1983 he worked as a Canteen Manager. The post of Can teen Salesman or Canteen Manager is a non-statutory post. However, he was appointed as a Peon (Grade-D) with the Station Director, Radio Kashmir Srinagar vide order dated 29.08.1983 in the pay scale of Rs. 196-232. On 07.07.1987 a letter was circulated for holding of Departmental Competitive Examination for appointment to the post of Clerk Grade-II from education ally qualified Group-D staff against 10% vacancies. The petitioner was educa tionally qualified and accordingly ap plied for taking the examination but his request was turned down by the respondents on the ground that he lacked requisite five years service in Group D as he was appointed to the aforesaid post on 29.08.1983. However, in the year 1991 when similar letter was circulated, he qualified the exami nation and was duly promoted to the post of Clerk Grade-II in the pay scale of Rs. 260-400 vide order dated 17.04.1991 (P-12). His representation for determination of his seniority right from the date of his joining as a Can teen Salesman/Can teen Manager and promotional benefits from the date he gave his willingness to appear in the Departmental examination in the year 1987, was rejected.
260-400 vide order dated 17.04.1991 (P-12). His representation for determination of his seniority right from the date of his joining as a Can teen Salesman/Can teen Manager and promotional benefits from the date he gave his willingness to appear in the Departmental examination in the year 1987, was rejected. He filed OA no. 1155/JK/97 with a prayer that he was eligible as a departmental candidate in the year 1987 and further requested for directions to the respondents for fixing of his seniority alongwith all the ben efits of promotion from the same date. 3. The respondents contested the claim made by the petitioner, pleading that he was never an employee of a departmental Canteen and the employ ees of the non-statutory Canteens/Tiffin rooms were declared Central Gov ernment Employees only w.e.f. 01.10.1991 which is evident from OM dated 26.08.1994 (R-l). The respon dents also defended the refusal to per mit the petitioner to appear in the ex amination in the year 1987 because from 29.08.1983 he had not completed five years service in Group-D post. 4. The Tribunal, after noticing the factual backdrop, recorded its opinion in para nos. 5 to 8, which reads thus:- "5. Permission to appear in the com petitive examination was refused in the year 1987. He came to be ap pointed as a Clerk only w.e.f. the year 1991. Cause of action, if any, to agi tate against the refusal above men tioned arose ml 987. He cannot be allowed to agitate this aspect through the O.A filed in the year 1997. His claim is highly belated and barred under the law of Limitation. 6. He was employee of a non statu tory canteen. Thereafter, he joined as a Group D w.e.f. July, 1983. As per Annexure P/10, five years are to be counted from his joining the regular service on a Group D post. He was rightly refused permission for the rea son that he had not completed 5 years up to the relevant date under Annex ure P/10. 7. His claim under para 8.11 of the Green Book, that he was eligible, is found to be not correct. This refers to employees of departmental canteens who could be promoted. He was em ployee of a non statutory canteen whose employees were included in the definition of Govt. employees only w.e.f. 1991. 8.
7. His claim under para 8.11 of the Green Book, that he was eligible, is found to be not correct. This refers to employees of departmental canteens who could be promoted. He was em ployee of a non statutory canteen whose employees were included in the definition of Govt. employees only w.e.f. 1991. 8. The claim of seniority on the post of Clerk Grade II with effect from the date he held the post of Canteen Clerk or for the period he worked as a Peon, is not tenable under the Law. It can be counted from the date he was ap pointed as clerk on qualifying the ex amination". 5. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and are of the view that the order passed by the Tribunal does not warrant any inter ference. 6. It is profitable to notice Section 21 of the Central Administrative Tribu nals Act, 1985. According to Section 21, the Central Administrative Tribunal is not to admit an Original Application in a case where final order has been made in connection with the grievance, un less an Original Application is made within initial period from the date such order has been made. However, the maximum period provided is one and half year. There is provision for condo nation of delay if bonafide reasons have been shown. The petitioner did not seek any condonation of delay. The aforesaid provision has been discussed by a seven Judge Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. S. Rathore vs. State of M.P., AIR 1990 SC, 10. In para 21 following observations have been made:- "It is appropriate to notice the provi sion regarding limitation under S.21 of the Central Administrative Tribu nals Act. Sub-section (I) has pre scribed a period of one year for mak ing of the application and power of condonation of delay of a total period of six months has been vested under sub-section (3). The Civil Courts juris diction has been taken away by the Act and, therefore, as far as Govern ment servants are concerned, Article 58 may not be in vocable in view of the special limitation. Yet suits out side the purview of the Central Ad ministrative Tribunals Act shall con tinue to be governed by Article 58". 7.
The Civil Courts juris diction has been taken away by the Act and, therefore, as far as Govern ment servants are concerned, Article 58 may not be in vocable in view of the special limitation. Yet suits out side the purview of the Central Ad ministrative Tribunals Act shall con tinue to be governed by Article 58". 7. In view of the above, no doubt is left that the petitioner's case is hope lessly time barred. Once the applica tion of the petitioner was rejected in the year 1987 which he accepted and did not challenge the order of rejection, the challenge made in the year 1997 would be apparently barred in view of the provisions of Section 21 of the Act. 8. Even on merit the case of the pe titioner does not require any detail con sideration. We find that the Tribunal has taken correct view by holding that once the petitioner did not fulfill the basic conditions of five years service on a Group-D post then no right of the petitioner could be deemed to have been violated. It has come on record that petitioner was appointed as a Peon (Group-D) vide order dated 29.08.1983 and he would have completed five years service some where in 1988. There fore, he cannot be considered to be eli gible even otherwise to take the De partmental Competitive Examination for appointment to the post of Clerk Grade-II against 10% quota meant for educationally qualified Group-D employ ees, which he later qualified in the year 1991. Thus even on merits no case is made out. 9. As a sequel to the above discus sions, the writ petition fails and same is dismissed.