K.S.PUTTASWAMY, J. - (1.) This is an application made by the applicant under S. 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. In pursuance to an Order made on 20.12.1961, the applicant joined the service as a Typist in the office of the Superintendent of census Operation, West Bengal and Sikkim in which capacity itself, he is continuing ever since then. The applicant claims to be a permanent official of the Census Department of the Govt. of. India. On this very basis, he claims that he has been wrongly treated as an official of the Department of Registrar General of India (RGI). On more than one occasion, the applicant made representations for treating him as an official of the Census Department and emend him all such benefits to which he was entitled to in that department. On 18.6.1986, the RGI had rejected the very last demand by the applicant in that behalf and the same has been communicated to him by the Deputy Registrar General of India, Language Division, Calcutta (DHGIC). The applicant has challenged the said Order and had sought for a declaration that he was permanent official of the Census Department. The respondent have filed their reply resisting the application. Mr. T. N. Bandopadhyay, the Learned Counsel for the applicant contends, that his client who had been appointed in the Census Department was entitled to be treated as an employee of that and that department only and the Order treating him as an official of the department of RGI was manifestly illegal, impermissible the period of limitation for this application should be computed only from 18.6.1986 on which date only the RGI rejected the last application of the applicant. In support of his contention, on the question of limitation, Mr. Bandopadhyay strongly relies on a Division Bench ruling of this Tribunal in B. Kumar vs. U.O.I., reported on ATR, 1988(1), 1 (CAT). Mr. D. N. Das, the learned Sr, Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents contends, that the grievance of the applicant, if any really arose and was decided by the RGI as early as on 20.3.75 (Annexure C -I) and this application, in reality to reagitate that Order was not maintainable. In support of his contention, Mr. Das strongly relies on, ATR 1986, CAT 203 and the various other rulings of this Tribunal that have reiterated the principle in that case. In the very nature of things it is first necessary to examine whether this application is in time or not. We will assume that the applicant was appointed in the Census Department of Govt. of India in 1:9.61 as claimed by him. Hut as early as on 20.3.75, the RGI, New Delhi, made an Order in favour or against the applicant which reads thus - With reference to Shri Amitava Roy, Typist, representation, dated 27th May 1974 and subsequent reminders, he is informed that the Pre -census Population Unit was set up in 1961 as a result of the discussions the Registrar General, India, had with the Executive Committee of the Socio -Economic Research Institute, Calcutta. The staff of the Unit was initially borne on the strength of the Office of the Director of Census Operations, West Bengal. In 1906, it was considered appropriate that the P.C.P.U. should function directly under the administrative control of the Registrar General, India, through the Assistant Registrar General (Language). The Registrar General, therefore, aide his letter of 30th March 1965 transferred one post of Statistical assistant; two posts of Lower Division Clerks, two posts of Typists and one post of Sorter -cum -Peon from the strength of the office of the Director of Census Operations, West Bengal, to the Language Division of the Office of the Registrar General, Calcutta. The incumbents of the posts who were working on the posts transferred to the language Division were also transferred vide Registrar General's letter No. 2/150/65 -RG, dated the 7th April 1966. When posts are transferred from one Office to another Office, the incumbents thereof are also transferred and for this it is not necessary to take their consent.
(2.) Shri Amitava Roy had been holding a temporal post in the Office of the Director of Census Operations, West Bengal, and that temporary post itself was transferred to the Language Division. There is, therefore, no question of his having any lien on any post in the Office of the Director of Census Operations, West Bengal, nor can be claim any seniority amongst the staff of that Office, as that Office was a separate identity than the Language Division of the Once of Assistant Registrar General, Calcutta.
(3.) It was mainly for the considerations referred to above that the representation of Shri Amitava Roy was rejected." On 21.1.76 (Annexure -I), the RGI rejected a further representation made by the applicant and reiterated his Order made on 20.3.1975. As late as an 18.6.1986, the applicant made a representation for reconsideration or reopening of the Orders made by the RGI on 20.3.1975 and 21.1.1976, which he again rejected the same reiterating what had been decided by him earlier. What emerges from these is that the grievance of the applicant, if any, for appointment in the Census Department or the Department of the RGI was finally decided by the Registrar General on 20.3.75. In the later Orders made from time to time, the RGI had only reiterated the same. Whether a decision or a grievance that had arisen befog 1.11.82 can at all be taken cognizance of by this Tribunal or not is now well settled. In Mehra's Cases, a Division Bench of the Principal Bench speaking through Mr. Justice Madhava Remedy, Hon'ble Chairman examined this very question and expressed thus - The Administrative Tribunal Act does not vest any pawl or authority to take cognizance of a grievance arising out of an Order made prior to 1.11.82. The petitioner requests that the delay in filing this application be condoned. But the question is not at one of condoning the delay in filing the petition. It is a question of the Tribunal having jurisdiction to entertain a petition in respect of grievance arising prior to 1.11.82. In Regn. No. T -34/85, Capt. Lachhman Singh v/s. Secretary, Ministry of Personnel and Training, we held: The period of three years laid down under sub -section (2) of Sec. 21 would have to be computed with reference to any Order made on such a representation and not with reference to the earlier Order the Tribunal would have jurisdiction under sub -section (2) of Sec. 21 to entertain an application in respect of "any Order" made between 1.11.82 and 1.11.85. The limited power that is vested to condone the delay in filing the application within the period prescribed is under Sec. 21 provided the grievance is in respect of an Order made within 3 years of the Constitution of the Tribunal. Though the present petition is filed within six months of the Constitution of the Tribunal in respect of an Order made prior to 1 -11.85 as contemplated by sub -section (3) of Sec. 21, since it relates to a grievance arising out of an Order, dated 22.5.1981, a date more than 3 years immediately preceding the Constitution of the Tribunal, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction, power or authority to entertain the petition. In all the latter rulings, this principle has been followed by all the Benches of this Tribunal In B. Kumar's Case, on which strong reliance is placed by Mr. Bandopadhyay, this legal position has not been departed. On the ratio in Nebula's Care consistently followed in all other cases, it is clear that the grievance of the applicant which arose prior to 1.11.82 cannot be entertained by this Tribunal. We cannot entertain this application and examine his grievance on merits. We, therefore, decline to examine the merits. In the light of our above discussion, we hold that this application is liable to be dismissed. We, therefore, dismiss the application. But in the circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs.;