Dr. Ramesh Narayan Dutta vs Union Of India And Ors

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Shadab Bin Haque, Ms. Leena Mukherjee for the respondent- Union of India and Mr. Indranil Bhaduri for the respondent- Central Silk Board.

Applicant is the writ petitioner aggrieved by the dismissal of the Original Application No. 051/00447/2018 vide order dated 20th September 2019 passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, Circuit Bench at Ranchi (Annexure-10). Applicant had prayed for quashing of letter no.5877 dated 5th September 2013 of Central Tsar Research and Training Institute, Ranchi and letter no. CSB 40(1) 2012 dated 8th January 2013 of the Central Silk Board by which his application form for the post of Head, ICAR-RC-ER Regional Research Centre, Darbhanga was not forwarded because of a ban imposed by the parent department CSB dated 8 th January 2013 (Annexure-5). Applicant also prayed for directing the respondents to pay Rs.2.2 crores as loss suffered by him in pay and emoluments till his superannuation on 3rd March 2015 from the Central Silk Board.

Respondents contested the claim and submitted that there is no infringement of any fundamental or constitutional right. They also relied upon the guidelines of the Department of Personnel and Training as per which the application of a Government servant can be withheld if it is justified in public interest. The respondent also took a plea that the original application is barred by limitation since it was preferred in 2018 much beyond the period of one year from the date of alleged cause of action on 5th September 2013 as per Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court in a writ petition in 2016 that was withdrawn, whereafter the instant O.A. was filed. Learned Tribunal after noticing the judgment cited by the applicant and taking note of the order dated 8 th January 2013 (Annexure-5) whereunder a ban was imposed in matters of forwarding of applications of CSB employees for outside job either by direct recruitment or on deputation basis except in the case of probationers, SC/ST employees and persons with disabilities, came to the conclusion that the applicant, if at all aggrieved by the order of ban, had never challenged it before the appropriate judicial forum and had lost his right to raise the cause of action because of the enormous delay in approaching the learned CAT. His claim for loss of a few crores of rupees was hypothetical and speculative. There was no violation of any constitutional or statutory right or any direct relation between what the applicant claimed to be his consequential loss and the denial of opportunity. Therefore, the original application was dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a valuable legal, constitutional and fundamental right of the applicant, who is a renowned scientist in the Central Silk Board, has been contravened which has led to not only loss of pay and emoluments of the higher post, but also great injustice to him. He has suffered for two years because of that till his superannuation on 3rd March 2015. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner, however, does not deny that the applicant approached the High Court at the first instance in W.P.(C) No. 6470 of 2016 after one year of his retirement raising this grievance and after withdrawal of the writ petition, approached the learned CAT two years thereafter in 2018 in the instant O.A. He however submits that the original prayer was also for quashing of letter no.5877 dated 5th September 2013 issued by Central Tsar Research and Training Institute which was a consequential order due to ban imposed. He submits that guidelines laying down the circumstances in which such an application need not be forwarded are contained in Annexure-R/2 to the Rejoinder dated 23rd December 2013. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner however does not press the prayer for grant of compensation as originally prayed, but submits that injustice to the applicant needs to be redressed by way of a declaration in his favour. The applicant was serving the Central Silk Board since 1982 and was the first Ph.D. holder in Makhana research in the world. At the end, learned counsel for the applicant has also conveyed that the writ petitioner is more than willing to serve the society and the State considering his vast experience in the field of Makhana research in particular.

Learned counsel for the respondents Union of India and CSB have strongly contested the submissions of the petitioner on the ground that the application was totally time barred and has been made after superannuation of the petitioner. As such, the claim is purely academic and no relief can be granted in his favour at this stage.

We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and taken note of the facts and circumstances above.

The sequence of facts taken note above show that the instant grievance has been raised before the learned CAT by the applicant/petitioner after five years of the alleged cause of action though he had moved this Court in 2016 but that too after one year of his superannuation on 3rd March 2015. There is no explanation either for the substantial delay in approaching the Tribunal. If the applicant was aggrieved by the order of ban dated 3rd January 2013, he should have approached the Court well within time instead of waiting for his retirement and then raising this issue which has become academic. We, therefore, do not find any error in the order of the learned Tribunal calling for our interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. The wide knowledge and experience gained by the writ petitioner, however, can be put to use for larger social purposes, if he is willing and capable to serve the society even after his retirement. Such sharing of knowledge on his part can be a contribution towards the society and the State.