PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. - (1.) CLAIM of the writ petitioner, by and under WP(C)No.6602/1998, which was transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal and was re-numbered as T.A.No.3/2006, was of denial of the benefits which flowed out of judgment and order dated 26.7.1984 when WP(C)No.79/1981 filed by the petitioner was allowed quashing the order of penalty imposed upon the petitioner. It was held that the petitioner would be entitled to all the consequential benefits.
(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.6602/1998 was that during the period post issuance of a charge sheet to him and penalty being imposed and further till W.P.(C) No.79/1981 was decided, persons junior to him and in particular the person immediately junior to him i.e. Constable Om Prakash was promoted as Head Constable and thereafter as ASI, SI and Inspector. THE petitioner prayed in the writ petition that he be promoted as Head Constable then ASI then SI and finally as Inspector w.e.f. the dates Om Prakash was so promoted. Needless to state the claim was predicated on the ground that since he was charge-sheeted in the year 1972 his case for promotion was not considered till the year 1984 and as a result of the penalty imposed upon him being set aside vide judgment and order dated 26.7.1984 with a direction that the petitioner would be entitled to all consequential benefits, he was to be given promotion to all posts to which Om Prakash earned promotions. It may be noted here that before filing the writ petition, the petitioner had filed a contempt petition alleging that the mandamus issued by this Court vide judgment and order dated 26.7.1984 when WP(C)No.79/1981 was allowed, has not been complied with. It was stated that the petitioner was eligible to be brought to the rank of Head Constable in the year 1974 and accordingly w.e.f. 30.5.1974 he was promoted as a Head Constable in view of the mandamus issued by this Court, but claim for further promotion was denied. The contempt petition was disposed of vide order dated 17.3.1998 holding that in contempt proceedings substantive issues in dispute could not be decided and thus it was held that the remedy of the petitioner was to file a fresh writ petition, which he did when WP(C)No.6602/1998 was filed.
(3.) IT may be noted here that WP(C)No.6602/1998 was transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal vide order dated 16.1.2006 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court holding that the dispute pertained to service under the Delhi Police and the appropriate forum would be the Central Administrative Tribunal. The petitioner sought a review of the order dated 16.1.2006 by filing an application for review being R.P.No.89/2006 and stated therein that his claim arose on issues pre-1982 and he may thus experience some issue on the bar of limitation; if raised by the respondents before the Tribunal.;