AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.K. Sharma, J.—The petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs vide para 7(i) to (iii):
(i) That the Respondents may be directed to transfer the applicant from the IPH department to the PWD department as per the policy dated 22.9.1984 and the notification dated 26.2.1988 forthwith.
(ii) That the Respondents may be directed to consider the case of the applicant for promotion as Assistant Engineer in the PWD department w.e.f July 1996 or any subsequent date from when the persons junior to the applicant, as Junior Engineer, have been promoted as Assistant Engineer, in the PWD department, with all consequential benefits like seniority and back wages forthwith.
(iii) That the action of the Respondents 1, 3 and 5 in transferring the applicant from the PWD department to the IPH department on 30.5.1991 (A-2) or any other subsequent date, contrary to the policy/notification dated 22.9.1984(A-1) and 26.2.1988, may kindly be quashed and set-aside.
In reply on behalf of the Respondents, the following averments have been set up vide para 1 of the preliminary submissions:
That the present O.A is hopelessly barred by limitation. This being so because u/s 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, the limitation to file and maintain O.A is provided one year from the date of cause of action. In the present case, the applicant upon promotion as Sr./Jr. Engineer on 30.5.91 stood posted in the I&PH Department, which though he declined but thereafter as J.E assumed duty in I&PH department in 1991. Though since 1.10.1984, P.W.D & I &PH Department stood bifurcated on the basis of notification "As is where is" and at that time option of individual was also required but through another notification dated 27.4.1994 the position of "As is where is" stood re-interated and at that time no option was required. Therefore for all intents and purposes the applicant stood allocated to I&PH Deptt. Since 31.5.1991 which allocation become final on 27.4.1994. Thus cause of action, that too, if any, accrued to the applicant on that day but he did not agitate the same well within limitation period before the Hon''ble Tribunal. Though through repeated reminders he kept up racking up this issue since 15.11.96 onwards, but at that time also limitation to rack up this issue stood already expired u/s 21. Further more it is also well settled principle of law that repeated reminder does not give fresh cause of action to an individual. Therefore, the applicant now at this belated stage is trying to rack up issue which stood settled 10 years back. Hence, the present petition is not maintainable on this score alone being the barred by limitation.
In view of the above reply, in case the Petitioner still has any surviving grievance with regard to the factual and legal position, it will be open to him to approach the first Respondent along with certified copy of this judgment within one month, in which case the said Respondent will look into the matter and take appropriate action in accordance with law and justice after giving personal hearing to the Petitioner and appropriate orders thereon shall be passed within three months.
With these observations the writ petition is disposed of so also the pending application(s), if any.