Shri Nagen Das vs The Union Of India & Ors.

PER: RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J):

This O.A. has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:

Sri S.R.A. Naser, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant previously in the year 2010 preferred an Original Application No. 38/2010 before this Tribunal challenging the orders dated 11.01.2010, 04.07.2005, 31.10.2008, 14.09.2009 and 31.08.2009. Later on, said O.A. was modified confining the relief as prayed to the extent namely quashing of order dated 31.10.2008 whereby a penalty of stoppage of increment for a period of two years with non-cumulative effect. Said O.A. was allowed vide order dated 27.08.2010 with an observation that neither the penalty nor the appellate order can be sustained in law and accordingly, same were quashed and set aside with all consequential benefits. That after the said order passed in the O.A. 38/2010, the Divisional Engineer/J N.F. Railway, Tinsukia issued a letter dated 09.11.2016, No. 110-DAR/TSK/W-7 to implement the order of this Tribunal.

As per the learned counsel, applicant was promoted to the post of Keyman vide order dated 28.08.2002 and again promoted to the post of Mate vide order dated 11.10.2012, but surprisingly the applicant has not been given any promotional monetary benefits (pay scale) due from the date of promotion till date. That the applicant is receiving a Salary of Rs. 65523/- (Per month) and Basic Pay of Rs. 39,800/-(Per month) whereas his colleagues with the similar grade pay are receiving more than him. Applicant had also made an RTI application against the difference in his pay scale which was replied by the Assistant Personnel Officer, N.F. Railway Tinsukia on 07.02.2023 stating that the applicant availed leave without pay in the year 1992 from 13.11.1992 to 12.02.1993. As per the applicant, in the earlier Original Application preferred by the applicant, the Respondent Authorities kept silent about the said leave without pay part Thereafter, the applicant preferred a series of cases against the arbitrary action of the Railway Authorities. Further submitted that O.A. 410/2019 was preferred by the applicant with basic grievances that the applicant was not given his arrear salaries with other allowances, which was disposed of vide order dated 21.02.2022. Thereafter, applicant made series of representation to the respondent authorities for giving him promotional benefits due from date of promotion and also payment of arrears but with no results.

Sri A. Chakraborty, learned Addl. CGSC for the respondents submitted that the matter is barred by limitation as the issue is more than 32 years old. In this case, applicant has challenged the decision of competent authority to regularize his absence period from 13.11.1992 to 12.02.1993 as leave without pay. As per extant law, the issue of limitation or delay and laches should be considered with reference to the original cause of action. It is a settled law that a stale or dead claim cannot be revived through belated representations and its responses, if any, from the administrative authorities. In this regard, he has placed reliance the following case rulings:

Learned Addl. CGSC for the respondents has further contended that applicant was promoted from Sr. Track Man to Keyman vide order dated 26.06.2002 and his pay was fixed on 12.08.2002. Since pay scale of both Sr. Track Man and Keyman was fixed at Rs. 2750-4400 of 5^th CPC; his pay scale remained same but with promotional benefits of Rs. 3380/-w.e.f. 30.08.2002 as Keyman was provided. Thereafter, he was promoted to Mate in scale of s. 5200-20200/-+1900/- vide order dated 11.10.2012. Since the applicant had already got MACP upgradation in scale of Rs. 5200-20200/-+1900/- w.e.f. 01.09.2008, his pay fixation on promotion to the post of Mate in scale of Rs. 5200-20200/-+1900/- does not arise. He has further argued that the Due to 92 days leave without pay from 13.11.1992 to 12.02.1993, his pay has been different with his colleagues, which was also admitted by the applicant himself vide representation dated 22.02.2023 (Annexure-A/6). The absent period of the applicant from 13.11.1992 to 12.02.1993 had been regularised as leave without pay, which was also well known to the applicant.

We have heard Sri S. Rizwan Ahmed Naser, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri A. Chakraborty, learned Addl. CGSC for the respondents and scrutinised the entire conspectus of the case.

In this case, applicant has challenged the decision of competent authority to regularize his absence period of 92 days leave without pay from 13.11.1992 to 12.02.1993. It is admitted fact that the issue is more than 32 years old. All efforts have been made by the respondents by complying with the orders of the Tribunal/authority. The applicant has also submitted series of representations before the respondent authority only in 2023 to review the order dated 17.08.2011. However, making of repeated representations is not a satisfactory explanation of delay as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa Vs. Pyarimohan Samantaray, reported in (1997) 3 SCC 396. In the State of T.N. Vs. Seshachalam, reported in (2007) 10 SCC 137, Hon’ble Apex Court has held that filing of representations alone would not save the period of limitation. Delay or laches is a relevant fact for a court to determine the question as to whether the claim made by an applicant deserves consideration. In the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. Ghanshyam Dass (2) and Ors., reported in (2011) 4 SCC 374, a three Judge Bench reiterating the principle stated in Jagdish Lal Vs. State of Haryana, (1977) 6 SCC 538, had observed that as the respondents therein preferred to sleep over their rights and approached the Tribunal in 1997, they would not get the benefit of the order dated 7.7.1992.

In this case, applicant is also asking for pay fixation on promotion to the post of Mate in scale 5200-20200/-+1900/- w.e.f. 01.09.2008. However, it is noted that the applicant was promoted to Mate in scale 5200-20200/-+1900/- vide order dated 11.10.2012, but he had already got MACP upgradaitn in scale of Rs. 5200-20200/-+1900/- w.e.f. 01.09.2008. Therefore, prayer for pay fixation on promotion to the post of Mate in scale 5200-20200/-+1900/- w.e.f. 01.09.2008 has not warranted any interference.

Keeping in view of the above, we find no merit in this case as the applicant has failed to demonstrate any plausible ground for interference with regard to delay and laches. Accordingly, O.A. stands dismissed. Pending M.A., if any, stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.