AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
L. Narasimha Reddy, J
This application is filed with a prayer to condone the delay of 770 days in filing the OA.
The 1st applicant is an Association of Category 1 (Sr. Audit Officers and Audit Officers) of the establishment of Comptroller and Auditor General
of India (CAG), the 1st respondent herein. The applicants 2 & 3 are said to be the employees. They intend to file an OA claiming relief on 11 counts
ranging from setting aside the order dated 13.06.2011 to the one of directing the respondents to grant the benefit of regular increment under Rule 13 of
CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008.
It is stated that a representation was made in relation to the order dated 13.06.2011, dated 13.11.2018 and that the same was rejected by the
respondents on 29.01.2019. As regards other relief also, the applicant referred to the information secured through an application under Right to
Information Act, 2005. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. Bhattacharya vs. 2013 (12) SC 489. It is also
stated that the cause of action is continuous in nature and strictly speaking it cannot be said that there was any delay at all.
The respondents filed a reply taking an objection to the MA. It is stated that the OA is filed by an Association and the cause of action cannot be
said to have accrued to it in the recent past. It is stated that the order of the year 2011 cannot be challenged at this length of time, that too by an
association. They pleaded that mere filing a representation at a belated stage does not save the limitation. Other various grounds urged by the
applicant are contradicted.
We heard Shri Shrutanjaya Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the applicant.
The delay is of 773 days. However, the ultimate challenge is to the orders dated 13.06.2011 and 22.09.2011. Nearly 9 years after the said orders
were passed, the present OA and MA are filed. The delay is almost 9 years. The applicants no doubt have filed a representation on 13.11.2018 vis a
vis the said orders. However, it is fairly well settled that mere filing of a representation at a belated stage does not save the limitation, if it is otherwise
barred.
It is true that the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the wrong fixation of the pay for an employee would lead to the recurring cause of
action and the same can be said to have accrued every month, when the salary is paid on the basis of wrong calculation. It was observed that if the
proceedings are initiated at a belated stage before a Court of Law, the employee can be denied the benefit of arrears. Here itself, a distinction needs
to be maintained between a case of wrong fixation of the pay, contrary to the existing rules on the one hand and the one where the very rule or
provision is challenged, on the other. While the former would be a redressal in favour of an individual, the latter would impact the entire organisation.
The law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court applies to the individual employees who claim the relief as regards the fixation of pay, even
at a belated stage. In the instant case, it is an association, that is claiming the relief. Interference with an order passed way back in the year 2011 at
the instance of an association would virtually topsy turvy the entire organisation. The matters of this nature are required to be pursued with
promptness. Stale and belated claim cannot be entertained at the instance of an association. It is a different matter that an individual official can
certainly approach the Tribunal complaining about the grievances as regards the fixation of pay.
We do not find any merit in the MA. It is accordingly dismissed and as a result, the OA is also not entertained.
All other MAs shall stand disposed of accordingly.