A retired postal employee challenged the Central Administrative Tribunal's refusal of a promotion claim structured on three departmental letters. The court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the claim was barred by 17 years' delay and laches and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:44293-DB WP No. 18500 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI WRIT PETITION NO. 18500 OF 2021 (S-CAT)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by NANDINI R Location: High Court of Karnataka
K.S. PRAKASH S/O. SRI. KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, RETIRED TBOP PA SBCO, JAYANAGAR HO, BANGALORE-560 041, ON DEPUTATION FROM BASAVANAGUDI HPO BG 560004. RESIDING AT NO.11, 2ND FLOOR, 4TH B CROSS, BALAJI ROAD, VIVEKANANDANAGAR, KATRIGUPPE MAIN ROAD, BSK III STAGE, BANGALORE-560 085.
(BY SRI. GURURAJ KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
…PETITIONER
AND:
KARNATAKA CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560 001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SHUBHA S., CGC)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI b) QUASH THE ORDER DATED 30/01/2020 IN OA NO.170/00170/2019, PASSED BY THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BRANCH PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT)
A civil servant who has taken voluntary retirement on 09.01.2006 is knocking at the doors of writ court for assailing the Central Administrative Tribunal's order dated 30.01.2020 whereby the relief of promotion, which he had sought for, has been denied.
granted in view of letters dated 08.02.1996, 05.08.1997 & 01.01.1998, on which the said claim had been structured. Learned counsel appearing for the official respondents opposes the petition drawing our attention to the contents of para 3 in the order of pronouncement, impugned before us.
3. Learned CGC further submits in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which it has been constructed, pointing out that the Administrative Tribunal exercising power u/s. 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 shares a sort of writ jurisdiction in the light of L. CHANDRA KUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS,1 and therefore, delay & laches as would apply to writ courts would also apply to the tribunal. So contending, she seeks dismissal of the writ petition.
1 AIR 1997 SC 1125
"The OA was dismissed mainly on the ground that the three letters dt. 08.02.1996, 05.08.1997 and 01.01.1998 based on which the applicant was seeking relief in the OA would be applicable in the case of seniors where the junior was brought to the unit under Rule 38 of P & T Manual Vol.IV in the lower grade and on the crucial date, he was still working in the lower grade. In the OA, the contention of the respondents that the three persons cited as juniors by the applicant were all functioning as UDCs on the crucial date ie., 01.08.1991 and therefore, the clarification issued vide the letter cited above will not come to the rescue of the applicant. The RA applicant has not cited any error apparent in the order nor has be cited any new information which was not in his ATIVE possession at the time of filing the OA. He is only citing certain judicial orders, all which have not been accepted based on the facts of the present case. Moreover, the Original Application was filed after a lapse of 17 years with no MA having been filed for condonation of delay."
representing the respondents that the petitioner’s claim was hopelessly barred by delay & laches of 17 years in view of Section 21(1) of the 1985 Act, which has the following text:
"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;”
NC: 2024:KHC:44293-DB WP No. 18500 of 2021
In the above circumstances, petition being devoid of
merits is dismissed, costs having been made easy.
Sd/(KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE
Sd/(C M JOSHI) JUDGE
SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal rightly denied promotion relief on grounds of delay and laches of 17 years under Section 21(1)(a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India & OthersRelied on¶3
AIR 1997 SC 1125 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
K.S. Prakash
The Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Department of Post
The Chief Post Master General, Karnataka Circle, Bangalore
Krishna S Dixit
C M Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
