Selvaraj Raju v. Union Of India And ORS.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] ...
WPCT/90/2019 Selvaraj Raju ... Petitioner Vs.
Union of India and others ... Respondents Mr. K.Sabir ... for the petitioner Mr. Shatadru Chakbraborty Mr. Ramendu Agarwal ... for the Administration August 22, 2022 [SR] Item No.9 The petitioner is aggrieved by an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench (Circuit Bench at Port Blair) dated 20.06.2018. By the said order, the application filed by the petitioner was rejected as being barred by limitation. The Tribunal was of the view that the petitioner has challenged the Seniority List published in 2009 by filing an Original Application in 2018.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could only challenge the Seniority List published in 2009 after the petitioner became eligible by an order dated 23rd May, 2016 passed by the Administration. By the said order, the petitioner's service was regularized for ad hoc promotion with effect from 11.07.2002. Counsel submits that the petitioner thereafter came across the Seniority List published in 2009 and made several representations from 28.03.2017 onwards. Counsel submits that the impugned
order was passed without considering any of the representations made by the petitioner.
Learned counsel appearing for the Administration submits that the representation made by the petitioner and received by the Administration on 24.07.2017 shows that the petitioner was affected by the order of seniority dated 03.04.2009. Counsel submits that the interim prayers in the OA also points to the same. Counsel further relies on the order dated 03.04.2009 being circulated by the Administration to all persons through the Directorate of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj.
The question before us is whether petitioner's OA was wrongly dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground of being barred by limitation. The relevant factual premise is that the petitioner is aggrieved by a Seniority List published on 03.04.2009 by which the petitioner's seniority was downgraded with regard to a feeder post of DANICS (Delhi Andaman and Nicobar Islands Civil Services). Section 21 (1) (a) of The Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, provides that a Tribunal shall not admit the application where a final order, as mentioned under Section 20 (2) (a), has been made in connection with a grievance unless the application is made within one year from the dated on which such final order has been made. Section 20 (2) (a) clarifies the cases where a person shall be deemed to have availed of all the remedies available to him under the relevant service rules as redressal of grievance. Clause (a) of Sub Section (2) of Section 20 further
clarifies that a final order must be made by the Government or the authority or competent person rejecting any appeal preferred or representation made by the person for coming under the deeming provision of Section 20 (2) of the Act. Hence, Section 21 (1) (a) read with 20 (2) (a) makes it clear that the limitation period of one year would apply where the person is deemed to have availed of all the remedies available to him including where a final order has been made by the Government/ authority rejecting any appeal preferred by the person or any representation made by the person. In the present case, the representations made by the petitioner before us are from 28.05.2017. It appears that the petitioner made three further representations on 23.05.2017, 24.07.2017 and 09.08.2017. None of the four representations were disposed of by the Administration. Learned counsel representing the Administration has also not submitted to the contrary.
We are therefore of the considered view that the Tribunal did not take the relevant factual position with reference to the law before rejecting the application of the petitioner. There is no reference of the relevant provisions of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 namely Sections 20 and 21 in the impugned order. The impugned order is, therefore, liable to be set aside.
WPCT/90/2019 is accordingly allowed and disposed of by setting aside the impugned order dated 28.06.2018. The petitioner is directed to file an application under Section 5 of The Limitation Act for explaining the delay, if any. The respondents shall consider the application as well as the representations made by the petitioner and pass an appropriate order within six weeks from date of receiving the application of the petitioner.
The petitioner shall file the application for condonation of delay within 1 week from date. If no such application is filed, the respondents shall comply with the above directions within seven weeks from today. Copies of the application which the petitioner may file are to be given to the private respondents who may be affected by any order which made be passed on the application.
( Moushumi Bhattacharya, J. ) ( Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J. )