Dismissed

R.Shantha Kumari v. Union of India

Madras HC14 Jun 2024WP/15282/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought restoration of initial appointment grade, claiming parity with similarly placed employees who succeeded in separate proceedings years earlier. The High Court dismissed the writ petition for delay and laches, noting the petitioner challenged the departmental policy decision after 20-22 years, well beyond the prescribed limitation period under the Central Administrative Tribuna

What the court decided

AI extract

R.Shantha Kumari Vs Union of India — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

WP No.15282 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 14.06.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶8

WP No.15282 of 2024

R.Shanthakumari

: Petitioner

versus

1.Union of India, Represented by the Chief Administrative Officer (P), Personnel Division, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Central Complex, Trombay, Mumbai-400 085.

¶13

2.Chief Administrative Officer, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre Facilities, Nuclear Recycle Board, Kalpakkam-603 102.

¶14

3.The Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Represented by its Registrar, Chennai-600 104. : Respondents

¶15

1/8

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

PRAYER:

¶18

WP No.15282 of 2024

¶19

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the common order of 3rd respondent Tribunal made in OA.No.195 of 2022 dated 10.01.2024 and quash the same, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, consequent to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to restore the petitioner's initial appointment in the grade of Tradesman-D with all consequential.

¶20

For the Petitioners : Mr.R.Makaichamy For the Respondents : Mr.S.Diwakar Senior Panel Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 third respondent-Tribunal

¶21

ORDER

¶22

(Order of the Court was made by D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.)

¶23

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order in OA.No.195 of 2022 dated 10.01.2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal and consequently, direct the respondents 1 and 2 to restore the petitioner's initial appointment in the grade of Tradesman-D with all consequential benefits.

¶24

2/8

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

WP No.15282 of 2024

¶27

Brief facts of the case:

¶28

2.1. The petitioner was appointed on 19.02.1998 as Tradesman 'D', for

¶29

in the pay scale of Rs.4500-7000. On completion of probation period, the respondents arbitrarily re-designated the petitioner as Tradesman 'C' carrying lower pay scale of Rs.4000-6000. Similarly re-designated Tradesmen at BARC, Mumbai, challenged the arbitrary impugned order of the respondents before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench in O.A.No.736 of 2000. The Central Administrative Tribunal, by order dated 18.02.2002, allowed the said OA in favour of those persons. Thereafter, the respondents herein filed appeal before the High Court of Bombay in WP No.2356 of 2002. The said writ petition came to be dismissed by the High Court of Bombay on 05.07.2018. The order of the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, was implemented vide order dated 11.01.2019.

¶30

2.2. After the order passed in OA No.736 of 2000 has been given effect to, the petitioner herein had made a representation dated 28.06.2019 to the respondents claiming the same benefit. The second respondent, by order dated 29.04.2020, rejected the said representation, on the ground that

¶31

3/8

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

WP No.15282 of 2024

¶34

the petitioner was not a party in the aforesaid OA No. 736 of 2000.

¶35

2.3. Aggrieved by the said rejection order, the petitioner filed the instant OA No.195 of 2022 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench. The Tribunal, by a common order dated 10.01.2024 dismissed the said original application on the ground of delay and latches and further held that the petitioner has not challenged the policy decision as well as his absorption order. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed in WP No.2356 of 2002 is applicable to the facts of the present case. He further submitted that since it was a policy decision taken by the department, the law of delay and latches would not apply for challenging the aforesaid proceedings of the respondent Department. Hence, he seeks for setting aside the common order passed by the Tribunal and allowing the writ petition.

¶37

4/8

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

WP No.15282 of 2024

¶40

Learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the respondent

¶41

Department reiterated the submissions made before the Tribunal.

¶42

Heard the parties and perused the materials available on record.

¶43

We have gone through the order passed by the Tribunal. The contention of the petitioner has been discussed and well considered by the Tribunal. With regard to implementation of policy decision, the Tribunal has stated that before implementing the said policy decision taken by the Department, the Department has given wide publicity. Further, the petitioners have accepted the said policy decision of the Department and subsequent promotion, and did not have any grievance for the aforesaid decision taken by the Department.

¶44

It is seen that similarly placed persons have filed original application before the Tribunal, Bombay Bench and succeeded in the aforesaid original application. Challenging the said order, the respondents herein filed writ petition and the same came to be dismissed by the High 5/8

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

WP No.15282 of 2024

¶47

Court of Bombay. Thereafter, this petitioner suddenly woke up and made representation to the respondent herein, after a lapse of 20-22 years seeking similar relief as granted to similarly placed persons in OA No.736 of 2000. When the representation was rejected on the ground that he was not a party in OA No.736 of 2000, the petitioner herein had approached the Tribunal and the same was dismissed on the ground that the Central Administrative Tribunal Act has clearly prescribed the limitation period for challenging the order passed the respondent Department. If the petitioner was aggrieved by the aforesaid policy decision taken by the Department in the year 1999, he ought to have approached the Tribunal within the time as prescribed under the Central Administrative Tribunal Act. But he has not done so. Considering from any angle, there is no grounds to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. Consequently, there is no merit in the writ petition. In fine, the writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶48

[D.K.K., J.] [K.B., J.] 14.06.2024 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No mrn 6/8

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶50

WP No.15282 of 2024

¶51

¶52

1.The Chief Administrative Officer (P), Personnel Division, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Central Complex, Trombay, Mumbai-400 085.

¶53

2.The Chief Administrative Officer, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre Facilities, Nuclear Recycle Board, Kalpakkam-603 102.

¶54

The Registrar, The Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench,

¶55

Chennai-600 104.

¶56

7/8

¶57

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶58

WP No.15282 of 2024

¶59

D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J. and K.KUMARESH BABU, J.

¶60

(mrn)

¶61

WP No.15282 of 2024

¶62

14.06.2024

¶63

8/8

¶64

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

R.Shantha Kumari v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

R.Shantha Kumari v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

E.Arasu Vs The Chief Engineer

A.Ramasami Vs S.G.Perumal

The Ex-Officio Secretary to Vs M.Duraisamy

The Principal General Manager Vs P.S.Jailani

N. Asaithambi Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

R.Karnan Vs Union of India