,,./ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 30 + W.P.(C) 1749/2011 and CMNo.3709/2011 MANOFIAR SINGH CI{ANA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.G.S.Lobhana, Advocate VETSUS uol AND ANR rhrough: Mr.Neeraj ch;;d*;:Tfflll"., Respondents,No. I and 2. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA ORDER 17.03.2011 By this writ petition preferred under Article 226 and 227 of the I Constitution of India, the defensibility of the order dated 26.8.2010 passed in O.A. No.270112010 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench (for short, ' the tribunal') is called in question. Y 2. The present litigation, as it seems, has a chequered history. The petitioner, while working in the Intelligence Bureau (for short, 'IB') '' approached this Court in WP(C) No. 1429 lIgTg claiming promotion when his juniors were promoted. The said petition was dismissed. Challenging f oh w.P.(c) 1749/2011 page I of5 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signature Not Verified v a -!- the order passed in that writ petition, LPA 21611980 was preferred wherein this court, by order dated 5 . 1 1 . 1999 , directed as follows: ,. The submission made by learned counsel for the Appellant is that his client had been wrongly overlooked and that he should also have been considered for promotion along with his juniors' In his rejoinder submissions, learned counsel for theAppellantdidnotpressforthepromotionof his client from llth August, 1972 which was the date on which Respondent No.4 was promoted' He, however, did press for the promotion of the Appellant at ieast'with effect from 24th December, lg74 when Respondents 3 and 7 were promoted' lhese promotions were made after the 1973 Recruitment Rules came into force. Since we have already held that Respondents 3 and 7 were rightly ! considered for promotion to the post of ACIO-I (Tech.), the Appellant should have also been , considered for promotion to the post of ACIO-II (Tech.) from the date of their promotion. We would, accordingly, direct the IB to consider the Appellant for promotion to the post of ACIO-I (fecfr.) with effect from 24th December, 1974 and upon his promotion, his pay be fixed accordingly' However, the Appellant will not be entitled to any affears of pay." 3. Thereafter, on 20.10.2000 the following order came to be passed in CM No.47912000: i " Mr.Jayant Bhushan states that the ACRs have been destroyed. Presumption is that there must not have been any adverse entry against the petitioner. Therefore, presuming that there was no adverse entry against the petitioner as none has been Y w.P.(c) 1749/201I page 2 of 5 3 { brought to our notice, petitioner should be given promotion as per our order and also fix his salary as per rules." 4. Thereafter the respondent passed an order of ad hoc promotion with effect from 24th December, I974. On 1" June, 2001, the following order was passed: "In continuation of our order under reference, the promotion of Shri Manohar Singh Channa, from the rank of JIO-I/Tech to the rank of ACIO- II/Tech, is regularized with effect from II-5-76 viz. the date of regulatization of promotion of Shri R.S.Luthra." 5. It was the case of the petitioner before the tribunal that had he been promoted on regular basis with effect from 24.12.1974, he would have been considered for the promotion to the next higher post in the year 1979. It is worth noting, the petitioner had left the IB in 1982 and joined the NTPC and eventually got absorbed in the said organization. 6. Be that as it may, the question that emerges for consideration is that though an adverse order was passed, as claimed by the petitioner, on 29.6.200I and, there after, on 25.09.2009 he approached the tribunal in O.A. No.277I12009 whereby thetribunal noticed that the pleadingswerenot w.P.(c) 1749/2011 page 3 of5 ! v '.J Y \l v proper and, accordingly, directed the petitioner to file a fresh O.A. In that background, the present o.A. was filed with the following reliefs "A. Quash the impugned order dated 04-12-2006 of showing the applicant in the seniority list of Workshop cadre. B. Direct the respondents to place the applicant in the seniority list dated 29-09-1975 of IIOs- I/Tech (excluding the names of persons, who have been shifted to workshop cadre) and also confirming the applicant as JIO-I(Tech.)." 7. As far as challenge to memorandum dated 4.12.2006 is concerned, tribunal has held that this was a futile exercise as the petitioner had joined NTPC in 1982. The petitioner inspite of being repeatedly asked, could not explain how memorandum dated 4.12.2006 can adversely affect him or has the effect of reducing his pension. The petitioner was not an employee of I.B. on 4.12.2006 and, therefore, the entire issue and question of seniority on the said date is absolutely inconsequential. 8. Before us, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that letter/order dated L6.200l granting ad-hoc promotion to the petitioner in the -l w.p.(c) t74g/2orl page 4 of 5 s rank of AICE-II/Technical w.e.f. 24.I2.I974 is incorrect. As noticed above, this issue does not appear to have been raised before the tribunal. Even if we take cognizance of the said contention, it is apparent that the petitioner had approached the tribunal only in the year 2009 i.e. almost after 8 years. 9. In our considered opinion, on this ground alone, the petitioner carurot be permitted and allowed to question the letter/order dated I.6.200I. Hence, C-.-_l we concur with the order of the tribunal and the present writ petition is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs. :7 , J, uT,^''' CHIEF JUSTICE --7 -'U ll( L-'(L --l .J MARCH t7,20tl sv w.P.(c) 1749/20rr SANJIV KHANNA, J ' &4,-, F<^ , ,-t '1 '['l"t), p,q *Cfl) 12rr+f 11 Jt. C.o-'\dr\ .L ,#i; _c/n r3rBsdl) { *U, d\ page 5 of5