AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
We have heard Shri Govind Saran, learned Counsel for the Petitioners.
The writ petition is reported to be filed 2 years and 142 days from the date of the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal.
The Central Administrative Tribunal allowed the Original Application No. 1027 of 2006 filed by the Respondent-applicant on 01.5.2008 on the ground that he was selected and empanelled but was not given appointment due to pendency of a criminal case against him. Since he was acquitted from the criminal case, he was entitled for appointment. The operative portion of the order is quoted as below:
In the instant case, the Respondents felt that appointment should be suspended till he is acquitted in the criminal case by the Court of law. We do not find any illegality in the said approach of the Respondents. However, now that applicant has already been acquitted in the criminal case and he had given due information to the General Manager (P) North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur vide his representation dated 07.11.2007, it was incumbent on the part of the Respondents to have issued an appropriate order thereafter, within a reasonable period. In any case since no order has been passed so far by the Respondents, this O.A is disposed of with direction to the Respondents to take into consideration the representation and judgment passed in Criminal Case given by the applicant and keeping in view their own letter dated 14.07.2006, further action should be taken to give appointment to the applicant within a reasonable period. Since the period of 5-6 months has already elapsed after applicant''s acquittal in the criminal case, Respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant and give appointment to the applicant on the post of TEC-III/C & W, DSLTEC (M) within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, under intimation to the applicant. The Respondents shall also grant seniority to the applicant from the same date on which persons of the same panel were given appointment. However, it is made clear that applicant would not be entitled to any back wages or arrears of salary because he had actually not performed any duty. There will be no order as to costs.
With the above directions, this O.A. is disposed off. No order as to costs.
The Petitioners complied with the judgment and appointed the Respondent No. 1-applicant within the period prescribed in the operative portion of the judgment. It is now contended that since the Respondent-applicant has claimed seniority with effect from the date when similarly situate persons were appointed from the panel and for which specific direction was given by the Tribunal, the Petitioners have decided to file the writ petition. In paragraph-18 the delay has been explained as follows:
That after receipt of the judgment and order dated 1.5.2008 passed by Respondent No. 2 the process has been adopted and the Respondent No. 1 has been given appointment. Now the Respondent No. 1 claiming seniority along with other persons, who were appointed from the same panel in pursuance of the judgment and order dated 1.5.2008. The copy of letter dated 1.5.2008 has already been filed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. The matter has been processed, notings etc. were done, orders were passed by several authorities, then sanction has been obtained for filing the writ petition. All this took time in filing the writ petition. The delay caused due to official procedure which is bonafide. Therefore, it is expedient and in the interest of justice that this Hon''ble Court may be pleased to condone the delay, if any, in filing the writ petition, so that the justice may be done.
The Petitioners have complied with the judgment of the Tribunal without any condition or reservation. They have thus accepted the judgment. It is not open for them, now after more than two years to challenge the same judgment of the Tribunal on the ground that the applicant has represented to be given seniority. The decision, if any, to challenge the judgment should have been taken at the time when it was complied with and the appointment was given to the Respondent-applicant.
The applicant-Respondent may succeed in the writ petition claiming seniority but that is not a ground on which the Petitioners can be permitted to challenge the judgment after such a long time.
The writ petition is barred by acquiescence and laches and is dismissed.