2021 (12) TMI 951 - HC - Indian Laws

Termination from the post of Computer Operator in the office of Commissioner, Income Tax - II, Jodhpur - seeking direction for not replacing them by any other source except by way of regular appointment - claim of the petitioner is that when similarly situated persons in compliance of the order dated 29.10.2012 were permitted to join the office, denial of indulgence to him in joining duties is discriminatory, illegal and unwarranted - HELD THAT - The petitioner has made an attempt to reagitate the issue which was concluded by the learned Tribunal with dismissal of his contempt petition in the year 2017. Not only that, the Tribunal has specifically stated that the conduct of the petitioner does not entitle him for grant of prayer requested by him on account of the fact that he never showed any willingness to resume duties in the office of respondent which is reflected from the fact that inspite of passing of favorable order by learned CAT on 29.10.2012, he has never appeared at the office nor did he file any execution application or raise any grievance. The act of petitioner in approaching the Tribunal after six years is time barred as per the provisions of Section 21 and 27 of Act of 1985. The application filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal was rightly dismissed and not entertained.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of Central Administrative Tribunal for dismissal of miscellaneous application for execution of order dated 29.10.2012.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a Computer Operator, along with four others, challenged their termination and sought direction for not being replaced except by regular appointment. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) decided in favor of the applicants in 2012, reinstating them. The petitioner filed a representation in 2013 and a contempt petition in 2017, which was dismissed. Subsequent review applications were also dismissed. In 2018, the petitioner filed a miscellaneous application for execution of the 2012 order, seeking re-engagement as a casual employee.

The Tribunal, in 2019, dismissed the application stating that the petitioner never joined duties as required by the 2012 order, unlike other similarly situated persons. The petitioner argued discrimination, citing the dismissal of a Special Leave Petition by the Union of India in a related case. The High Court noted that the petitioner failed to show willingness to resume duties despite the favorable order in 2012. The Court found the petitioner's actions time-barred under the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, as the application was filed after six years, contrary to the Act's limitation provisions for execution and raising grievances.

The High Court upheld the Tribunal's order, stating that the petitioner's attempt to re-agitate the issue was improper, as the matter had been concluded earlier. The Court emphasized that the petitioner's delay in pursuing the matter and failure to join duties were key factors in dismissing the application. The Court concluded that the 2019 order did not warrant interference and dismissed the writ petition for lack of merit.