BHANDARI, J. - (1.) BY filing the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 21. 12. 2000 (Annex. 6) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur.
(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner, as set out in the petition is that he was wrongly denied benefit of stepping up. It has been averred that the petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Clerk on 10. 10. 1957. He was promoted to the post of Head Clerk in the scale of Rs. 425 - 700, w. e. f. 7. 7. 82. A person junior to the petitioner was granted special pay of Rs. 35/- under the cadre restructuring effective from 1. 1. 84. THE grievance of the petitioner is that while his pay scale was fixed in the scale of Rs. 550 - 750, the pay of his junior was fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 425 - 700, since junior employee was drawing special pay of Rs. 35/ -. Thus, same was taken as pay for the purpose of fixation, even on a higher post of Head Clerk and thereby, his pay was fixed at Rs. 545/- w. e. f. 1. 1. 84. Whereas petitioner's pay was fixed at Rs. 530/- w. e. f. 1. 1. 84, resulting in anomaly. THE case of the petitioner is that he was entitled for the benefit of stepping-up pursuant to the Railway Board's Circular dated 14. 2. 95. Circular provides following conditions for grant of stepping- up benefits :- " In pursuance of the agreed conclusions it has been decided in consultation with the Ministry of Finance to step up the pay fixed on promotion of senior UDCs not in receipt of this special pay equal to the pay fixed on promotion of junior UDC in receipt of this special pay in the following cases only :- (a) Where a senior UDC promoted before 5/5/79 started drawing less pay than a junior UDC promoted after 5. 5. 79. (b) Where the senior UDC was in receipt of special pay of Rs. 35/- but this special pay of Rs. 35/- but this special pay was denied to him on appointment to the non-functional selection grade of UDC. (c) Where the UDCs even though senior were not considered for appointment to the identified posts on the grounds that they were already holding some other posts carrying special pay of Rs. 35/- or more. THE stepping up of pay in these cases will be subject to the fulfilment of the conditions of natural principles viz. (1) both senior and junior employees belonged to the same cadres in the lower and higher posts and their scales of pay in the two posts were also identical; (ii) the senior employee was drawing equal or more pay than junior in the lower post (of course without taking into account the element of special pay), the senior employee was promoted earlier than his junior. " Further the case set up before us is that the petitioner was wrongly denied benefit of special pay from 14. 1. 1981. According to the petitioner, if he would have been given benefit of special pay, even after 14. 1. 81, then also, that anomaly would not have arisen. The petitioner has also made a reference to a document (Annex. 1) in the writ petition dated 22nd December, 1984 to contend that his case was recommended for grant of special pay. Therefore, his right was recognized even by the Railway Authorities. According to the petitioner, the Tribunal fail to consider that he was wrongly denied benefit of special pay as well as benefit of stepping up of the pay from the date person junior to the petitioner started drawing more wages. Per-Contra, the learned counsel appearing for the Railways, submitted that the case of the petitioner was considered by the Central Administrative Tribunal after referring to the circular dated 14. 2. 95. It was further contended that the petitioner was not entitled for the benefit of stepping up as his case was not falling in any of the categories given in the circular dated 14. 2. 95. The further contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that even the benefit of special pay was not available to the petitioner and his claim in that regard was rejected by the Railways vide order dated 12. 10. 90. Therefore, it was submitted before us that once the benefit of special pay was denied vide order dated 12. 10. 90, the petitioner failed to challenge the said order before Central Administrative Tribunal, more so when said order was placed before the Central Administrative Tribunal along with reply. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, when there was specific denial for grant of special pay to the petitioner, subsequent claim of stepping up was not tenable and challenge to the order dated 12. 10. 90 became time barred as the Original Application was filed in the year, 1999. It was, however, fairly conceded by the learned counsel for the respondents that the issue of limitation and rights under the order dated 12. 10. 90 have not been discussed in the impugned judgment. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once order at Annex. 1 dated 22. 12. 84 was passed, then he became entitled for the benefit of special pay and otherwise also, his case was falling in category (b) of the circular dated 14. 2. 95. Thus, it was urged that the Tribunal committed an error in denying the benefit of stepping up to the petitioner. We have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the judgment as well as documents on record. The issue specifically argued before the Tribunal was pertaining to the benefit of stepping up pursuant to the circular dated 14. 2. 95 and the Tribunal had examined the matter at length by considering each of the clauses of the aforesaid circular and thereupon, came to the conclusion that the case of the petitioner - applicant does not fall in any of the categories specified in the aforesaid circular. We have considered the finding recorded by the Tribunal in its judgment and are of the considered view that there exists no illegality in the order passed by it. It is required to be noted that by order dated 12. 10. 90, the claim of the petitioner for grant of special pay was already rejected, and said order remained unchallenged throughout. It is also required to be noted that the petitioner has not fulfilled the conditions set out in the Circular dated 14. 2. 95. The contention of the petitioner, therefore, for grant of special pay of Rs. 35/- in the light of the order passed at Annex. 1 dated 22. 12. 84 cannot be accepted. On behalf of the advocate for the Railway Administration, it has been pointed out that the special pay which was granted to the petitioner in the year, 1981, was cancelled and his case for grant of special pay was rejected vide order dated 12. 10. 90. It is pointed out that this order was already placed before the Tribunal at the time of hearing and the same is part of record. It is, therefore, argued that the claim of the petitioner is too stale to be adjudicated. The prayer of the petitioner for grant of special pay of Rs. 35/- in view of the order dated 22. 12. 84 at Annex. 1, cannot be accepted in view of the aforesaid order dated 12. 10. 90,wherein his claim was rejected on that date. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, submitted that he went on making representations from time to time and, therefore, it cannot be said that his claim was either belated or barred by limitation. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submitted that making representations from time to time cannot come to the rescue of the appellant as in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of such repeated representations cannot enlarge the period of limitation. It is submitted that simply because the representation was made, it cannot be said that the petition cannot be rejected on the ground of delay and latches. Though, of course, the Tribunal has not dismissed the application on the ground of limitation. It is required to be noted that so far as the order dated 12. 10. 90 is concerned, the same has not been challenged by the petitioner and ultimately he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal in the year, 1999. The application of the petitioner before the Tribunal, therefore, clearly suffers from delay and latches and not only that, though the Tribunal has not considered it from the point of limitation, we are of the opinion that the said application also made beyond the period of limitation provided under Section 21 of the Act of 1985 and, in our view, repeated representations cannot enlarge the period of limitation.
(3.) THE matter was also examined in regard to fulfillment of condition of clause (b) of circular dated 14. 2. 95, as was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner. We find that requirements of clause (b) of circular dated 14. 2. 95 have not been fulfilled in the present case and thereby, the petitioner was not entitled for the benefit of stepping up pursuant to circular referred to above. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any error in the judgment passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, more so, when the Tribunal has recorded its finding on all the issues raised during the course of arguments. Hence, the writ petition challenging the judgment of the Tribunal cannot be entertained thus, same is dismissed with no order as to costs. .;