IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 19729-CAT of 2010 Date of Decision: November 9, 2010 S.S. Bawlia …Petitioner Versus Central Board of Trustees, Employees Provident Fund Organisation and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by an un-successful applicant is directed against order dated 4.6.2010 (P-7), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’). The Tribunal has refused to entertain the prayer made by the applicant-petitioner for granting him ante-date promotion with effect from 30.12.1994, since the date he has been officiating on the post of Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner under the promotion quota against panel for the year 1993-94. The Tribunal has also non-suited the applicant- petitioner on the ground of delay and laches because the cause of action, if any, arose to him in the year 1999 whereas the original application was filed in the year 2009. On the issue of granting ante-date promotion on the post of Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, the Tribunal has placed reliance on a C.W.P. No. 19729-CAT of 2010 judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Uttaranchal v. Dinesh Kumar, 2007 (1) RSJ 79. 2. Having heard learned counsel we are of the considered view that no fault could be found with the opinion expressed by the Tribunal. It has come on record that the cause of action, if any, arose to the applicant- petitioner in the year 1999. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner has sought to explain the delay by referring to the reply filed by the respondents to the representation made by him asking him to wait for the result of O.A. No. 1005 of 2001, titled as R. Venkatraman v. Union of India, which was then pending before the Ernakulam Bench of the Tribunal. The aforesaid letter dated 11.2.2002, has been placed on record as Annexure A-10, which is part of the Original Application (P-1). Thereafter, even the Ernakulam Bench of the Tribunal pronounced order dated 29.4.2004 (A-12), yet the applicant-petitioner maintained blissful silence and was content by making repeated representations. There is hardly any explanation for delay from the year 2004 to the year 2009. 3. Even otherwise, on merit no ante-date promotion could be given to the applicant-petitioner because it has not been shown that the officiating promotion was earned by him by going through the procedure laid down for regular promotion as per the Rules. Accordingly, we do not find any valid ground to admit the petition. The view taken by the Tribunal is un- exceptionable and deserves to be accepted. 4. In view of the above, the instant petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE 2 C.W.P. No. 19729-CAT of 2010 (RITU BAHRI) November 9, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 3