AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The applicant has filed this OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:-
"Direct the Respondent to forthwith discharge and pay all consequential benefits accruing in favour of the Applicant as per the Order(s) of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No.7336/2011 (Order dated 11.2.2014) inclusive of his leave salary, leave encashment, gratuity, arrears of pension etc. as incorporated in the annexed Schedule Annexure A-6;
(i) Allow the Original Application with costs;
(ii) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may be granted in favour of the Applicant."
Brief facts of the case as stated by the applicant in the OA are that he was appointed as TGT (Sanskrit) with the Directorate of Education in the year 1980 and subsequently he was promoted to the post of PGT (Sanskrit) in 1990.
2.1 In the year 1991, a case was registered against the applicant under Sections 498A/304-B (FIR No.204/1991) and he was allegedly arrested and as a consequence, was also placed under deemed suspension vide order dated 4.10.1991. He was reinstated in March 1992. He had been continuously working since then till his superannuation on 30.11.2012.
2.2 The learned Trial Court convicted the applicant sentenced him to undergo two years imprisonment vide judgment dated 18.4.2001. However, the said order of conviction of the applicant was set aside by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Appeal No.280/2001, vide judgment dated 22.3.2010. Since the said Order of acquittal was not challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, it became final and conclusive.
2.3 The applicant submitted a number of representations on various dates, viz., 15.4.2010, 13.8.2010, 15.9.2010, 1.11.2010 and 21.2.2010 for release of consequential benefits (inclusive of increments) and for his right to be promoted as Vice Principal (the applicant had become eligible for further promotion in 2005).
2.3 The disciplinary proceedings were also initiated against the applicant and the report submitted by the inquiry officer was accepted by the disciplinary authority who directed for closure of the inquiry vide order dated 27.11.2013.
2.4 Applicant further stated that as the applicant had become eligible for the post of Vice Principal, he was shown as under the zone of consideration in the promotional list prepared by the respondent Department. However, owing to pendency of the criminal matter, the name of the applicant was not considered.
Even the applicant had also become eligible for the post of Principal.
2.5 Feeling aggrieved by inaction on the part of the respondents on his representations, the applicant preferred a Writ Petition (W.P. (C) No.7336/2011) in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. By the said petition, a Writ of Mandamus was sought for release of all consequential benefits, increments, back-wages, promotions, and other antecedent benefits in favour of the applicant. The said Writ Petition was allowed by the High Court of Delhi vide Order dated 11.2.2014 with the following directions:-
"7.1 The petitioner will be released all consequential benefits, which would flow upon the closure of departmental proceedings against him, by virtue of order dated 27.11.2013.
I am informed that the writ petition has retired from service. Therefore, the order passed today, will take into account the impact it would have on the retiral benefits payable to the petitioner."
2.6 Despite the said Order and a number of visits to the offices of the respondent, the relief has not been provided to the applicant. A non statutory representation was again submitted by the applicant, through the means of a legal communication vide a notice dated 10.6.2016 but there has been no response whatsoever.
2.7 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid inaction on the part of the respondents, the applicant has left with no option except to approach this Tribunal for redressal of his grievances.
Pursuant to notice issued to the respondents, they have filed their reply in which they have stated that in 1991, a criminal case was registered against the applicant under Sections 498-A & 304-B. The applicant was arrested and as a consequence he was placed under deemed suspension vide order dated 4.10.1991. The applicant was reinstated in March 1992 and an inquiry was initiated against him regarding his conduct under CCS Rules. The Trial court vide order dated 18.4.2001 convicted the applicant and sentenced him for two years of imprisonment but the applicant did not communicate his conviction and sentence to his superiors of Directorate of Education.
3.1 The applicant filed an appeal No.280/2001 before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court against the order of learned Trial Court where the High Court set aside the order of trial court and acquitted him from all charges vide order dated 22.3.2010.
3.2 The Directorate of Education charge-sheeted the applicant for his failure to inform his superiors regarding his conviction & sentence vide Memorandum dated 15.5.2011.
3.3 On 19.9.2012, the inquiry officer submitted his report against the applicant in which Articles (I & II) of charges were proved, but the report was remitted back to inquiry officer vide letter dated 26.12.2012 as there were certain discrepancies in the report.
3.4 On 30.11.2012, the applicant retired on his superannuation & the Directorate of Education took a lenient view with regard to a retiring employee. After getting the Inquiry Report, the Director of Education directed to close all disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant vide order dated 27.11.2013.
3.5 They further stated that from the above it is clear that during the period from 1991 to 2010, the applicant was facing a criminal case in a court of law, that's why he could not be given vigilance clearance by the DOV and therefore no promotion might be granted to him as per CCS Rules.
3.6 Neither the applicant was promoted nor did he work on the post of Vice Principal & Principal any time.
3.7 They also stated that as per CCS Rules, without clearing vigilance, nobody can become eligible for any promotion and the vigilance of applicant was not clear till the date of his retirement on attaining the age of superannuation. Hence, no question arises for any kind of promotion might be granted to the applicant.
The applicant has also filed his rejoinder affidavit in which the applicant has refuted the contentions raised by the respondents in their counter affidavit and reiterated the averments made in the rejoinder affidavit.
We heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.
Counsel for the applicant reiterated the facts as stated by him in the OA and further submitted that the applicant has filed this OA for implementation of the aforesaid Order of the High Court of Delhi by which the applicant was granted the relief and directions issued by the High Court was that the respondents will release all consequential benefits, which would flow upon the closure of departmental proceedings against him by virtue of order dated 27.11.2013, but the respondents have failed to comply with this Order. Hence, the applicant forced to file this OA for implementation of the aforesaid of Order of the High Court.
Counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant has already been paid all the consequential benefits, including all retiral benefits. So far as applicant's claim for grant of promotion to the post of Vice Principal is concerned, the applicant was involved in a criminal case and therefore, vigilance clearance was not made. As such there was no question of any promotion of the applicant to the post of Vice Principal. Counsel further submitted that the applicant has filed this OA for the relief of implementation of the Delhi High Court's aforesaid Order, which is not maintainable before this Tribunal as such type of relief cannot be claimed by filing the present OA.
This Court is unable to accept the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant. First of all, the present OA in the present form is legally not maintainable, as according to the applicant's own contention, the applicant had filed a Writ Petition before the Delhi High Court, which was allowed and the applicant was granted relief of all the consequential benefits flowing upon the closure of departmental proceedings, and in case, the respondents had not complied with the directions contained in the said Order of the Delhi High Court then the applicant ought to have moved an application before the High Court for compliance or for contempt but in no case, the applicant can file this OA for implementation of the aforesaid Order passed by the High Court.
Further the High Court had granted relief to the applicant in the year 2013 and this OA has been preferred in the year 2016 for implementation of the High Court's Order which is also barred by limitation as per the provisions of Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which reads as follows:-
"21. Limitation -
(1) A Tribunal shall not admit an application, -
(a) in a case where a final order such as is mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 20 has been made in connection with the grievance unless the application is made, within one year from the date on which such final order has been made;
(b) in a case where an appeal or representation such as is mentioned in clause (b) of sub-section
(2) of section 20 has been made and a period of six months had expired thereafter without such final order having been made, within one year from the date of expiry of the said period of six months.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where -
(a) the grievance in respect of which an application is made had arisen by reason of any order made at any time during the period of three years immediately preceding the date on which the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunal becomes exercisable under this Act in respect of the matter to which such order relates; and
(b) no proceedings for the redressal of such grievance had been commenced before the said date before any High Court, the application shall be entertained by the Tribunal if it is made within the period referred to in clause (a), or , as the case may be, clause (b), of sub-section (1) or within a period of six months from the said date, whichever period expires later.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), an application may be admitted after the period of one year specified in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) or, as the case may be, the period of six months specified in sub-section(2), if the applicant satisfies the Tribunal that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period."
Further applicant has also failed to demonstrate as to why he has waited for the last three years before filing this OA. Further he has not moved any application for condonation of delay in filing the present OA. It is relevant to mention that the Apex Court in SLP (C) No.7956/2011 (CC No.3709/2011) in the matter of D.C.S. Negi vs. Union of India & Others, decided on 07.03.2011, it has been held as follows:-
"A reading of the plain language of the above reproduced section makes it clear that the Tribunal cannot admit an application unless the same is made within the time specified in clauses (a) and (b) of Section 21 (1) or Section 21 (2) or an order is passed in terms of sub-section (3) for entertaining the application after the prescribed period. Since Section 21 (1) is couched in negative form, it is the duty of the Tribunal to first consider whether the application is within limitation. An application can be admitted only if the same is found to have been made within the prescribed period or sufficient cause is shown for not doing so within the prescribed period and an order is passed under Section 21 (3)".
The Apex Court in the case of S.S. Rathore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1989) 4 SCC 582, held thus:-
"We are of the view that the cause of action shall be taken to arise not from the date of the original adverse order but on the date when the order of the higher authority where a statutory remedy is provided entertaining the appeal or representation is made and where no such order is made, though the remedy has been availed of, a six months' period from the date of preferring of the appeal or making of the representation shall be taken to be the date when cause of action shall be taken to have first arisen. We, however, make it clear that this principle may not be applicable when the remedy availed of has not been provided by law. Repeated unsuccessful representations not provided by law are not governed by this principle. It is appropriate to notice the provision regarding limitation under s. 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act. Sub-section (1) has prescribed a period of one year for making of the application and power of condonation of delay of a total period of six months has been vested under sub- section (3). The Civil Court's jurisdiction has been taken away by the Act and, therefore, as far as Government servants are concerned, Article' 58 may not be invocable in view of the special limitation. Yet, suits outside the purview of the Administrative Tribunals Act shall continue to be governed by Article 58.
It is proper that the position in such cases should be uniform. Therefore, in every such case only when the appeal or representation provided by law is disposed of, cause of action shall first accrue and where such order is not made, on the expiry of six months from the date when the appeal was-filed or representation was made, the right to sue shall first accrue."
Further in case the respondents have failed to implement the aforesaid Order of the High Court, the applicant has remedy like filing of Contempt Petition or application for compliance before the High Court but asking the relief of implementation of the High Court's aforesaid Order from this Tribunal is not proper and cannot be granted by this Tribunal as this Tribunal is not an executing authority to execute the orders of the High Court.
In the result, for the foregoing reasons, the present OA is not maintainable, as also barred by limitation, and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.