Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 127 (MP)

D. P. Singh v. Union of India

2015-02-02

C.V.SIRPURKAR, RAJENDRA MENON

body2015
ORDER 1. Notice has been served through Dasti Service on respondents No.4 and 6, in spite thereof, none appears. 2. Challenging the order dated 15th January, 2014 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act,1988 this writ petition has been filed under article 227 of the Constitution. 3. It is pointed out by Shri A.P.Singh, Advocate that only on the ground that the petitioner was granted IPS cadre in the year 2005 and respondent No.6 in the aforesaid cadre in the year 2002 and the petitioner did not challenge this action in the year 2002 or 2005 but challenged the same in the year 2013 and after holding that no application for condonation of delay was filed the application under section 19 was dismissed at the stage of admission itself without granting liberty to the petitioner to file rejoinder to clarify the position. Shri A.P.Singh, Advocate points out that cause of action for grievance to the petitioner accrued in the year 2013 and when the respondent No.6 was being promoted as IG from the cadre of DIG it is pointed out that in view of this the application was within limitation. 4. On notice being issued, Union of India has not filed any reply; however, respondent No.1 UPSC has filed the reply and it is pointed out that matter is pending consideration before the State Government and a representation filed by the petitioner dated 4.3.2013 Annexure P-9 in the matter is pending before the State Government and it is for the State Government to take a decision in the matter. As far as the State Government is concerned they have not filed any reply but only said that the order passed by the Tribunal is proper. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the facts available on record go to show that representation Annexure P-9 dated 4.3.2013 filed by the petitioner, is still pending for consideration. 6. Even though the Tribunal while dismissing the application on the ground of delay has held that the petitioner should have filed the application in the year 2002 when the IPS cadre was granted to respondent No.6 but before doing so no opportunity to file rejoinder and clarify the position and further an opportunity to file the application for condonation of delay was granted. That apart, the applicant and the respondent No.6 are said to have been promoted in the cadre of DIG back in the year 2007 and from the cadre of DIG it is the grievance of the petitioner that respondent No.6 has been promoted as IPS ignoring the claim of the petitioner. All these facts have a bearing on the question of limitation and even the application for condonation of delay should have been filed if proper opportunity was granted to the petitioner. 7. Taking note of these facts, we are unable to dismiss this petition at this stage on the ground of delay. However, as representation of the petitioner is pending consideration before the State Government, the State Government is required to take a decision in the matter. 8. Taking into consideration the above circumstances, without entering into the controversy on merit and leaving the question of limitation to be decided at a appropriate stage as and when required, it is directed that the State Government shall consider and decide the representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-9 dated 4.3.2013) by a speaking order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 9. We may clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case including the question of delay in raising the dispute and it is exclusively for the State Government to take all these facts including the question of delay while deciding the representation. 10. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. ....................