1 WP7005.11 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7005 OF 2011 Smt.Rukmini Vishwanath Shendge ... Petitioner v/s Union of India & ors. ... Respondents Mr.D.V.Gangal with Mr.Ram Singh for the petitioner. Mr.Suresh Kumar for respondents. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. DATED: 11TH OCTOBER, 2011 P.C. (Smt.Mhatre, J.) 1. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal on 16.6.2010 in Original Application No.58 of 2010. The original application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner had filed Review Petition No.15 of 2010 which was also dismissed. Misc. Petition No.492 of 2010 filed in the same original application has been dismissed on 29.10.2010 by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The petitioner has challenged all the aforesaid orders in the 2 WP7005.11 present petition. 2. Brief facts relating to the present petition are as follows:- The petitioner is a member of a Scheduled Tribe. She was appointed as a Junior Clerk in the office of respondent No.2 - the Divisional Commercial Manager, Central Railway, Solapur, on 4.10.1979. She was promoted in accordance with the Rules applicable on various occasions. On 1.3.1993, the Railway Board issued an order for restructuring of the cadre of Groups C and D. According to the petitioner, this order was not implemented by respondent No.2. The petitioner was aggrieved by the fact that her seniority was not fixed in accordance with the Rules applicable to her and the order dated 1.3.1993 because she had not been accorded the benefits of the reservation available for the Scheduled Tribes candidates while fixing her seniority. 3. Aggrieved by the actions of the respondents in not fixing her seniority and granting a promotion in accordance with law, the petitioner preferred Original Application No.58 of 2005 before the Central Administrative Tribunal on 14.1.2005. The main contention of the petitioner in the 3 WP7005.11 original application was that she had been ignored for selection to a higher grade for administrative reasons. The petitioner was aggrieved by the fact that her juniors had been promoted and that they were placed higher than her in the seniority list dated 30.1.2004. She therefore sought the following reliefs in her original application: “a. The applicant prays that the Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to call for the record of the case from the respondents and after examination the same, quash and set aside the seniority dated 30.1.2004 Annexure A-1. b. Direct the respondent to promote the applicant as OS-II from 23.12.92 because respondent failed to assess the post of OS-II reserved for ST candidates and after complaint to Railway Board, respondent assessed the said post in 1997 and applicant was given promotion very late or from 14.3.95 with pay fixation, promotion, arrears and seniority. c. Since respondent No.2 failed to implement restructuring of OS-II from 1.3.93 nearly to vindicate ST employee, hence Hon’ble Tribunal may please consider the merit and direct respondent to fix pay and seniority and arrear of pay from 1.3.93. d. Hon’ble Tribunal is requested to direct respondent to amend the seniority according to Railway Board letter dated 8.3.2002.” 4. The Central Administrative Tribunal, after considering the submissions of the petitioner and the respondents, has held that the Tribunal could not unsettle the position which had been settled 13 years earlier. The Tribunal was of the opinion that the seniority of the petitioner could not be fixed 4 WP7005.11 w.e.f. 1992 when she had filed the original application in 2005; she had been promoted in 1998. The Tribunal, therefore, was of the opinion that the delay of 13 long years could not be condoned. It further noted that the petitioner had participated in the selection process of 1997-98 and, therefore, she had appeared in the process of selection and could not claim seniority from any earlier date. The Tribunal was of the view that although the petitioner had submitted representations time and again to the authorities after she was overlooked for promotion in 1992, she took no effective steps for redressal of her grievance. Essentially, therefore, the Tribunal was of the view that the original application could not be considered due to the delay of 13 years. 5. The review petition and the miscellaneous petition were dismissed as the Tribunal did not find it necessary to recall its order in Original Application. Several contentions have been raised before us by Mr.Gangal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. He pointed out that the Tribunal has committed a grave error by observing in para 3.2 of its order that the petitioner had not placed on record the letter issued by the Railway Board on 8.3.2002 in support of the petitioner’s claim. According to him, had this letter been noticed by the Tribunal, it would have been apparent 5 WP7005.11 that the Railways were aware that the petitioner had a genuine grievance and that her seniority was to be re-fixed on par with her juniors who were promoted earlier, by modifying the panel declared in 1995. Mr.Gangal further submitted that the Tribunal has not dwelt upon this letter of 8.3.2002 while deciding the review petition although the petitioner had raised this ground in her review petition. 6. We have perused the letter dated 8.3.2002. The submission of Mr.Gangal that the Tribunal has failed to consider this crucial document is well founded. The Railways have not denied that such a letter had been issued nor is there any material on record to disbelieve the statement made by the petitioner that the letter dated 8.3.2002 was produced on record by her, in the proceedings before the Tribunal. 7. In our opinion, therefore, the observations of the Tribunal contained in para 3.2 are incorrect. Had the letter dated 8.3.2002 been perused by the Tribunal, it may have been persuaded to decide the matter differently. 8. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Original Application must be remanded for a fresh decision 6 WP7005.11 on prayers (a) and (d). In the event the Tribunal grants these prayers, all the consequences flowing therefrom will follow. 9. Writ petition allowed accordingly. (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.) 7 WP7005.11