THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION NO. 25664 OF 2002 WEDNESDAY, THE 03rd DAY OF MARCH, 2010 Between:- Ms. Balhar Fasiha ..Petitioner And The Flag Officer Commanding-in Chief, Eastern Naval Command, Naval Base, Visakhapatnam and others. ..Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No. 25664 OF 2002 Oral Order: (Per: GR, J) This is a writ petition directed against the rejection of O.A.No. 880 of 2002 by the order dated 30-04-2002 of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (for short the ‘Tribunal’). The petitioner was appointed as Stenographer Grade-III in the Eastern Naval Command, Visakhapatnam with effect from 21-04-1979. Her services were regularized in the said category with effect from 01-06-1981 in a regular vacancy. In the seniority lists published on 23-06-1993 and 27-04-1995 reflecting the seniority positions as on 31-03-1993 and 31-03-1995 respectively, the petitioner was shown at a position higher to the 5th respondent. In the earlier seniority list of 1993 while the petitioner is at serial No.15, respondent No.5 is shown at serial No. 29. While in the 1995 seniority list, the petitioner is at serial No. 12 and respondent No.5 at serial No. 25. However, in another seniority list as on 01-02-1998, published in proceedings dated 18-02-1998/04-03-1998, the 5th respondent is shown at serial No.1 and the petitioner at serial No.7. The petitioner made a number of representations for rectification of the discrepancy. In response, on 18-05-1998 she was informed by the official respondents that the 5th respondent had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal Calcutta Bench in O.A.No. 54 of 1990 seeking regularization with effect from the initial date of casual employment i.e., 21-04-1979; that O.A.No. 54 of 1990 was allowed and as a consequence, the 5th respondent’s seniority was reckoned from 21-04-1979 as against the petitioner’s seniority with effect from 01-07-1981. This inter se seniority consequent on the judgment of the Calcutta Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No. 54 of 1990 was reflected in the seniority list dated 18-02-1998/04-03-1998. The petitioner aggrieved by her being placed junior to the 5th respondent filed O.A.No. 880 of 2000 before the Tribunal. This application was dismissed by the order impugned herein, rightly concluding that as the seniority of the 5th respondent had to be revised consequent upon the judgment of the Calcutta Bench of the Tribunal in O.A.No. 54 of 1990, the 5th respondent was treated as senior to the petitioner and the petitioner cannot have a grievance. The petitioner was however enabled to make a representation to the 1st respondent seeking seniority with effect from 21-04-1979 on par with the principle adopted in the case of 5th respondent. The substantive relief sought in O.A.No.880 of 2000 viz., a direction to the respondents to reckon her seniority from the date of her initial appointment i.e., 21-04-1979 as Stenographer Grade-III and restoration of her seniority over respondent No.5, was however rejected by the impugned order of the Tribunal. As regards a claim/relief of regularization with effect from 21-04-1979 (the date of her initial casual employment) is concerned, the petitioner could not have maintained an O.A. in 2000 as that would be barred by inordinate latches and delay i.e., the delay of about 21 years. On the analysis above, we find no reason to interfere with the order impugned in O.A.No. 800 of 2000. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Dated: 03-03-2010 Pvks/*