Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2212 (DEL)

Manohar Singh Chana v. Union of India

2017-07-11

REKHA PALLI, VIPIN SANGHI

body2017
JUDGMENT : REKHA PALLI, J. 1. The Petitioner who as an ex-serviceman and joined the Intelligence Bureau (‘IB’ in short) by way of the present writ petition, impugns the orders dated 20th December, 2016 & 21st March, 2017 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi whereby his original application and review have both been dismissed. 2. The admitted facts as noticed by the Tribunal are that the Petitioner had joined the Intelligence Bureau on 1st March, 1968 as Junior Intelligence Officer Grade I (Technical) (“JIO-I/Tech” in short). It transpires from the record that during the period between 1992 and 1996, several officers in the Technical Wing including some persons junior to the Petitioner were promoted as ACIO-II (Technical) but the Petitioner was not considered for promotion to the said post. Challenging his non-consideration for promotion, the Petitioner filed a writ petition being WP (C) No.1429/1979 before this Court which was dismissed, whereupon he preferred an LPA being LPA No.216/1980 which was allowed vide judgment dated 5th November, 1999. The operative part of the judgment of the Division Bench in the said LPA reads as under:- “Accordingly, we hold that the Appellant belonged to the Technical cadre which was a part of the W.T Wing of the IB…. We would accordingly direct the IB to consider the Appellant for promotion to the post of ACIO-II(Tech) with effect from 24th December, 1974 and upon his promotion, his pay be fixed accordingly…. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeal is allowed….” 3. Thus, the Division Bench as noticed above, directed the Respondent to consider the Petitioner for promotion to the post of ACIO-II (Technical) w.e.f. 24th December, 1974 and, upon his promotion, to fix his pay accordingly. 4. During the pendency of his aforesaid LPA before this Court, the Petitioner joined NTPC Limited initially on deputation w.e.f. 28th January, 1982 and subsequently by way of permanent absorption w.e.f. 1st April, 1984. Thus, though the Petitioner had ceased to be an employee of the Respondent w.e.f. 1st April, 1984 but in compliance with the directions of this Court in LPA No.216/1980, the Petitioner vide order dated 1st June, 2001, was promoted as ACIO –II (Technical) w.e.f. 24th December, 1974. Thus, though the Petitioner had ceased to be an employee of the Respondent w.e.f. 1st April, 1984 but in compliance with the directions of this Court in LPA No.216/1980, the Petitioner vide order dated 1st June, 2001, was promoted as ACIO –II (Technical) w.e.f. 24th December, 1974. The Petitioner, however, was not satisfied with his ante dated promotion to the post of ACIO-II (Tech.) and started another round of litigation after the order of Tribunal in 2006 vide OA.2112/2006 wherein he not only prayed for production of DPC records but also claimed that he was entitled to promotion to the post of ACIO Grade I (Tech.). 5. Upon the OA No.2112/2006 being dismissed, the Petitioner again approached this Court by way of WP (C) No.8676/2007 which petition was dismissed vide a detailed judgment dated 26th March, 2009. The observation of the Division Bench are reproduced here in below:- “The aforesaid details would show that the petitioner cannot be given promotion to the post of ACIO-I (Tech) when his case is considered vis-à-vis his juniors vis-à-vis his seniors. In so far as Sh.S.C. Dhawan seniority to the petitioner is concerned, he was promoted as ACIO-II (Tech) w.e.f. 31.08.1984 i.e. much after the petitioner stood absorbed in the NTPC and had left the Intelligence Bureau. The two persons junior to him got promotion much subsequently i.e. on 07.11.1986. Faced with this situation, the only submission of the petitioner is that since Sh.Jagan Nath Sharma and Sh.Jeet Ram Yadav got promotion to the post of ACIO-I (Tech) after rendering four years service as ACIO-II (Tech), and therefore the petitioner should have been given promotion at least eight years after rendering of service as ACIO-II (Tech) in 1982. This argument needs outright rejection. One cannot go by the number of years of service for getting promotion to the higher grade. It depends on various circumstances. In the present case itself though Sh.Jagan Nath Sharma and Sh.Jeet Ram Yadav got promotion to the next higher grade within five years, as against them Sh.S.C. Dhawan could manage to get promotion only after 12 years of service. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. This petition is accordingly dismissed being devoid of any merit.” 6. The Petitioner, thereafter, filed an SLP No.17833 of 2010 before the Apex Court which too was dismissed. 7. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. This petition is accordingly dismissed being devoid of any merit.” 6. The Petitioner, thereafter, filed an SLP No.17833 of 2010 before the Apex Court which too was dismissed. 7. Even though the Petitioner’s attempt to re-agitate regarding his seniority and to seek further promotion in the IB stood rejected by this Court on 26th March, 2009-whereafter his SLP was also dismissed by the Apex Court, he yet again approached the Tribunal by way of OA No.1787 of 2014 with a prayer for refixation of his seniority as ACIO-II (Tech.) and for grant of promotion to him to the post of ACIO-I (Tech.) along with all consequential benefits. 8. In response to the Petitioner’s OA, the Respondents in their reply, while bringing out the details of all the earlier cases filed by the Petitioner, prayed for dismissal of the same on the ground of res judicata. The Respondent contended that the matter regarding his seniority and promotion had attained finality in the year 2000 itself, and the Petitioner was now trying to re-agitate the same issues on wholly baseless grounds. The Respondents, therefore, prayed that the OA being misconceived, was liable to be dismissed on the ground of res judicata and delay. 9. The Tribunal, after considering the contentions of both sides and the effect of the orders passed in the earlier cases filed by the Petitioner, has dismissed the OA by holding that the Petitioner had attempted to unsettle the decisions of the Tribunal, High Court and the Apex Court in regard to his inter se seniority with Respondent no.5, which could not be allowed on the principles of res judicata and delay. 10. The Petitioner had, thereafter, filed a review application before the Tribunal which was also dismissed vide order dated 21st March, 2017. 11. The main contention raised by the Petitioner that there were neither any undue delay on his part in filing an original application, nor the principles of res judicata was applicable in the facts of the case as the parties and the reliefs claimed by the Petitioners in both the OAs, were totally different. 12. We have heard the arguments of the Petitioner-who appeared in person, and of the learned counsel for the Respondents and with their assistance, perused the records. 13. 12. We have heard the arguments of the Petitioner-who appeared in person, and of the learned counsel for the Respondents and with their assistance, perused the records. 13. From a perusal of the record, it becomes evident that the issue regarding the Petitioner’s inter-se seniority and his claim for promotion to the post of AICO-I (Technical) stood adjudicated by this court, firstly on 5th November, 1999, and thereafter again on 26th March, 2009. Even his SLPs challenging those orders passed by this Court stood dismissed long back and it is, therefore, apparent that the Petitioner is merely trying to re-agitate those issues which had attained finality by trying to cleverly word his prayers in a different way and his OA was wholly misconceived. 14. In the light of the aforesaid, in our view, the Tribunal was duly justified in dismissing the petitioner’s OA. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. 15. This petition is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed with no orders as to costs. In view of the writ petition having been dismissed, CM No.23846/2015 is also dismissed.