Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 429 (MP)

ABHAY KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA

2022-03-14

AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI), VIVEK RUSIA

body2022
ORDER VIVEK RUSIA, J. : – The petitioner has filed this present petition being aggrieved by order dated 7-12-2021 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Circuit Sitting, Indore, whereby the Original Application No. 201/467/2020 has been dismissed because of non-condonation of delay. 2. The facts of the case in short are as under : – The petitioner is working as a Scientific Officer-H in the Raja Ramanna Centre for Advanced Technology (RRCAT). His name was considered for promotion by Review Screening Committee to the Scientific Officer-G in the year 2010. The promotion list was issued, however, the name of the petitioner was not there. Thereafter, in the year 2011, he has been promoted to the said post. 3. According to the petitioner in the year 2018 from some sources he came to know that his case had wrongly been rejected by the Committee despite he was having the adequate ACRs pertaining to the year 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09. He immediately applied for obtaining the proceeding of Screening Committee under the Right to Information Act, 2005 in the year 2018. After receipt of this relevant documents, he approached the Tribunal by way of Original Application No. 201/467/2020. There was a delay in approaching the Tribunal, therefore, the petitioner has filed a separate application under section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 seeking condonation of delay. 4. The Tribunal after considering the averments made in the application and the judgment cited by the petitioner/applicant has held that the cause of action arose in favour of the petitioner in the year 2010, when his case was not considered for promotion. However, he kept mum till 2019 and after lapse of 09 years he approached the Tribunal for his grievance. However, he has been promoted to the post of Scientific Officer-G in the year 2011. 5. Shri Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that had ACRs of the petitioner were consider at the relevant point of time, he would have earn promotion in the year 2010 instead of in the year 2011, therefore, he is entitled for seniority from the year 2010. He has recurring cause of action. Hence, the Tribunal ought to have a lenient view instead of applying strict provisions of Limitation Act in its strict sense. 6. He has recurring cause of action. Hence, the Tribunal ought to have a lenient view instead of applying strict provisions of Limitation Act in its strict sense. 6. We have heard Shri P. J. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent on advance notice. 7. According to the petitioner, he believed that his case was properly considered by the Screening Committee and due to some valid reasons his name was not recommended for promotion but he was shocked and surprised to know after obtaining the documents in the year 2018-19 that his case had wrongly been rejected by the Committee. 8. We have gone through the averment made in Original Application, specially in application filed under section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. It is not in dispute that the delay is liable to be condoned for approaching the Tribunal, Court or any Authority, irrespective of the period of delay, if there are sufficient reasons for condonation of delay. The only reason which the petitioner/applicant has stated that in the year 2018 he gathered information that some foul play has been played against him in screening process held in the year 2010, thereafter, he applied under RTI on 20-12-2018 and he was supplied the documents on 9-1-2019 and thereafter, he approached the Tribunal. The source of above information in the year 2018 has not been described in the application, there is only vague averment. The fact remains that the petitioner after rejection of his candidature in the year 2010 did not make any effort to know as to how his name has not been considered and rejected. Had he made any representation or objection to the respondents that would have been considered by respondents. He was not vigilant about his right but he remained silent for 09 years and suddenly after obtaining the documents under the RTI Act has approached the Tribunal. 9. Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 provides the limitation of 01 year for admitting an application from the date of cause of action accrued in favour of the Government employee. The fact remains that the petitioner had earned promotion in the year 2011 and further promotion from time to time. The petitioner has failed to satisfy the learned Tribunal that he had sufficient cause for not filing the application within one year. The fact remains that the petitioner had earned promotion in the year 2011 and further promotion from time to time. The petitioner has failed to satisfy the learned Tribunal that he had sufficient cause for not filing the application within one year. We do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Certified copy as per rules.