AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, praying for the following relief(s):-
“a) An order / direction do issue to cancel, withdraw and/or rescind the impugned speaking order issued by the respondent authorities dated 06.09.2016 and 28.10.2016 rejecting representation made by the applicant.
b)To direct the respondents and each one of them to treat the interregnum period from the date of submission of teacher's training certificate to the date of reinstatement as pent on duty and give all service benefit attached to the post including all arrears of pay and allowances;
c)To direct the respondent authorities and each of them to forthwith allow the applicant to senior pay scale attached to the post of Primary teacher and also treat interregnum period from the date of submission of teacher's training certificate to the date of reinstatement as spent on duty in service for pensionary benefit and other benefits.
d)To direct the respondents and each of them to consider the representations made by the applicant in light of judgement passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of Calcutta High Court on 31.01.2014.
e)To direct the respondents to produce the entire records of the case before this Hon'ble Tribunal for adjudication of the points at issue.
f)Costs pertaining to this application.
g)And to pass such further or other order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper”.
Ld. Counsel for the respondents Ms. D. Nag is present and heard. None appears for the applicant.
When the matter was taken up for consideration and since there is no representation on behalf of the applicant, Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that this Original Application was barred by res judicata.
Ld. Counsel for the respondents submitted that it is evident that the applicant has been agitating the same issue which had been already adjudicated before this Tribunal on several occasions. The issue attained its finality in the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta. The order passed by the Hon'ble High Court. Calcutta on 31.01.2014 has since been implemented. He had not moved before the Apex Court against the order of High Court regarding the impugned direction on the treatment of intervening period. The applicant had approached this Hon'ble Tribunal in 2008 after having failed to comply the commitment made by him before the appellate authority in 1998. Department is in no way responsible for delay of 10 years in approaching the Tribunal. Thus it is amply clear that the delay is attributable to him and not the department. In the circumstance and the claim for back wages and treatment of intervening period as spent on duty does not survive at all. Hence the present O.A. not only suffers from delays and latches, it is also not maintainable in law, being barred by the principle of res judicata and thus the application is liable to be rejected at the admission stage itself. It is, therefore, once again repeated and reiterated that apart from other reasons, the instant O.A. filed by the applicant is liable to be dismissed only on the ground that it is barred by the principle of res judicata.
We are, therefore, convinced with the submissions made by Ld. Counsel for the respondents.
Since the Original Application is barred by res judicata, the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.