Review petition dismissed. The High Court found no grounds to reopen a seniority dispute settled decades earlier, noting the petitioner's delayed challenge precluded reverting to the finalized position.
Review petition dismissed.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Review Petition (Writ) No.170/2019
In
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4903/2019
Padamanabha Krishna Kurup Son Of Shri R.P. Kurup, Aged About 71 Years, Resident Of B-94-A, Kirti Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur, Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.M. Jain
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Judgment
26/08/2019
This petition seeks to review of the judgment of this Court dated 30.04.2019 by which writ petition being D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4903/2019, Padamanabha Krishna Kurup Vs. Union of India and Others, challenging the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) dated 29.11.2018, was dismissed.
The Tribunal by its judgment has observed that the petitioner was aggrieved by the higher seniority assigned to respondent no.4
(2 of 4)
[WRW-170/2019]
in the cadre of Stenographer with effect from 07.05.1971. He initially gave a representation to the respondents, which was rejected by the Commissioner of Income Tax on 30.11.1979 more than 38 years ago. However, he never opted to challenge the said order immediately thereafter. The Tribunal further observed that perusal of the order dated 28.03.2018 revealed that after the order dated 30.11.1979, the petitioner also submitted representations dated 17.10.2016, 03.02.2017, 29.06.2017, 07.07.2017, 17.07.2017, 24.07.2017 and 06.12.2017. It was in response to those representations, the petitioner was apprised by the respondents about the order dated 30.11.1979 whereby his claim with regard to seniority over and above the respondent no.4 in the cadre of Stenographers was rejected. The Tribunal therefore rightly found that the issue of seniority being challenged almost four decades after, which was finalized, cannot be reopened and settled position cannot be resettled.
Learned counsel for review-petitioner has invited attention of the Court towards his representation dated 29.12.1979 (Annexure-14), which he claims to have submitted to the respondents after the order dated 30.11.1979 was passed. He then submits that the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Admn.), vide letter dated 22.03.2000 (Annexure-19) sent to the petitioner in response to the show cause notice dated 27.12.1999 served by him through his Advocate, required him to submit necessary documents. He submitted the necessary documents to respondents with his letter dated 03.03.2000.
Learned counsel submitted that even then the respondents again by order dated 10.10.2016 addressed to the petitioner mechanically rejected the representation of the petitioner. Perusal
(3 of 4)
[WRW-170/2019]
of the aforesaid letter dated 10.10.2016 reveals that the Government of India rejected the representation of the petitioner on that ground that the matter is more than 40 years old and the files/documents pertaining thereto are not available. The Board has also sought files/documents in the matter from Jaipur charge but it showed its inability to provide any records being 40 years old. It was further stated therein that the Board was not in a position to take any decision in the matter in absence of the records/files. Thereafter the petitioner submitted all the documents with his letter dated 17.10.2016 (Annexure-29) and the Government forwarded the same by letter dated 15.11.2016 to the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCA), Rajasthan Region, Jaipur. Even then his representation has been rejected by order dated 29th June/3rd July, 2017 (Annexure-33). A perusal thereof indicates that the respondent conveyed to the petitioner that he was recruited as Stenographer on regular basis on 18.09.1969 and challenged the initial seniority list of Stenographers in which the persons appointed on ad-hoc/trial basis were given the benefit of the seniority from the date they joined the department. Prior to this also he represented the matter and his representation was rejected by order dated 23.03.2000. A copy of that order was also forwarded to the petitioner.
Perusal of all these documents shows that the reviewpetitioner has been trying to revive an old dispute which pertains to his seniority position settled long back and cannot be disturbed after such an enormous delay. Repeated representations and response of the respondents to anyone of them does not revive
(4 of 4)
[WRW-170/2019]
the old stake of the petitioner. We do not find any ground for review of the order dated 30.04.2019.
The review petition is accordingly dismissed.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J
//Jaiman//88
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a challenge to the seniority list filed more than four decades after the decision was barred by law.
Padamanabha Krishna Kurup
Union Of India
The Central Board Of Direct Taxes
The Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax
Smt. Aamini Ishaak
Mohammad Rafiq
Narendra Singh Dhaddha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
