Union of India v. Vinay Bhushan Mishra Son of Late Kamala Pati Mishra
2022-07-05
P.B.BAJANTHRI, RAJIV ROY
body2022
DigiLaw.ai
JUDGMENT : P.B. BAJANTHRI, J. In the instant petition, petitioners have assailed the order dated 01.06.2017 passed in O.A. No. 721 of 2012 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna. The respondents were employees of the petitioner-department, were extended the benefit of 2nd and 3rd MACP with reference to their service particulars on 04.12.2009 w.e.f. 01.09.2008 and thereafter on 18.05.2012 aforesaid benefit of MACP has been cancelled which was the subject-matter of O.A. No. 721 of 2012. The Tribunal while allowing O.A. No. 721 of 2012 passed following order (page 62 para 9): “9. In conclusion, the OA is allowed. The cancellations order dated 18.05.2012 (Annexure A/2) with respect to the applicants is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to restore the financial upgradation under MACPS which was granted by the letter dated 04.12.2009 (Annexure A/1) within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondents shall be at liberty to verify the records again which has to be in consonance with the aforesaid observations. No order as to costs.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners was asked as to whether respondents were given due show cause notice while apprising each of the respondent as to how each of them are not entitled to MACP and it was wrongly extended w.e.f. 01.09.2008 on 04.12.2009. In cancellation of MACP which was granted to each of the respondent is without notice and it is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Moreover, the tribunal has given liberty to the petitioners to verify the record once again and it has to be in consonance with the observations made in the order dated 01.06.2017 passed in O.A. No. 721 of 2012. 3. At this juncture, it is to be noted that the present petition was filed in the year 2021 against the order dated 01.06.2017 in the month of December, 2021. There is enormous delay in filing the present petition. There is no pleading to condone the delay of about 4 years. Therefore, petitioners have not made out a case. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed.