Deepak Singh Bhadauria v. Delhi Metro Rail Corp Ltd & Anr.

1. The challenge in this petition is to an order dated September 16, 2022 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (‘Tribunal’, for short) in an Original Application being OA 4348/2018, filed by the petitioner herein. The challenge in the OA was to an order dated January 30, 2018 issued by the respondents whereby the request of the petitioner for promoting him to the post of Sr. SC/TO was rejected.

2. The Tribunal vide the impugned order has rejected the OA by stating in paragraph 11 as under: W.P.(C) 5596/2023 Page 2

3. The submission of Mr. Karanjot Singh Mainee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the OA was decided by the Tribunal in the absence of the petitioner and his counsel

4. According to Mr. Mainee, the Tribunal had not considered the stand taken by the petitioner in the OA inasmuch as the petitioner’s adverse remarks in ACR/APARs for the years 2010- 2011 and 2011-2012 were not communicated to him, which resulted in the petitioner not achieving the benchmark (i.e., to secure 11 points out of 15 in the previous three years of ACR / APARs), when his case was considered for promotion in the year

2013. He submits that the petitioner had made representations thereafter, but those representations were not answered by the respondents. He concedes to the fact that in the year 2016, the petitioner was promoted to the said post, but not with retrospective effect. His submission is that even after being promoted, the petitioner had made several representations to the respondents to relate back his promotion from the year 2013, when persons junior to the petitioner were promoted. According to him, it is pursuant to the rejection of the representation of the petitioner dated January 22, 2018 vide order dated January 30, 2018, that the petitioner had approached the Tribunal by filing the aforesaid OA. On a specific W.P.(C) 5596/2023 Page 3 query to Mr. Mainee, that how will the petitioner explain the delay that has occurred in filing the OA before the Tribunal only in the year 2018 for a claim of promotion denied in the year 2013, Mr. Mainee submits that the right to invoke the Tribunal’s jurisdiction only arose when the petitioner’s representation was rejected by the respondents in the year 2018. We are unable to agree with the said submission of Mr. Mainee.

5. On a further query to Mr. Mainee as to when the ACR / APARs for the years 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 (which according to Mr. Mainee were below the benchmark), were communicated to the petitioner, he submits that it was in the year 2013.

6. In fact, it is also his submission that persons junior to him were also promoted to the higher post in the year 2013. If that be so, the OA having been filed in the year 2018 was clearly barred by time, more particularly, in view of the provisions of Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Suffice to state, mere filing of representations shall not extend the limitation for a cause of action that had arisen to the petitioner in the year 2013.

7. We find that the Tribunal has already in paragraphs 8 & 9, dealt with merit of the issue raised by the petitioner herein qua his non-promotion to the post of Sr. SC / TO in the year 2012 (not 2013 as contended by Mr. Mainee), by stating as under:

8. The above shows, the petitioner could not satisfy the Tribunal on the merit of his claim for promotion. In that sense, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner even if the petitioner and his counsel were absent at the time of disposal of the OA.

9. In the totality of the facts, more so in exercise of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, we do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order. The same is dismissed.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J