HARISH CHANDRA SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS M.A. 133/2002 has been filed by Shri Harish Chandra Singh in O.A. No. 282/2002 - Harish Chandra Singh v. Union of India and Ors. and has prayed that the delay, if any, in filing the O.A. has occurred, the same may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice and the O.A. filed by the applicant may kindly be decided on merit.

(2.) The brief facts necessary for disposal of this M.A. are that the applicant was temporarily appointed on the post of L.D.C. on 1.1.1988. His appointment was on ad hoc basis and he joined on the said post on 7.1.1988. He was appointed on probation on 19.9.1988 as L.D.C. He got his further promotion to the post of U.D.C vide an order dated 4.9.1998. His main prayer in the O.A. is for reckoning him the seniority from 7.1.1988 i.e., the date of working on ad hoc basis on the post of L.D.C, with all consequential benefits including promotion, from the date his next junior had been promoted. His next junior Shri Rajeev Pandey (with appointment date 23.1.1988) was promoted to the post of U.D.C. w.e.f. 1.1.1994, as indicated in Annex. A/2 to the O.A.

(3.) THE respondents have contested the M.A and have filed a detailed reply. THE contentions raised in the M.A. have been denied. It has been submitted that the O.A. is hopelessly time barred and merits rejection in view of the provisions of Limitation prescribed Under Section 21 of the Act. It has been submitted that after March 1993 or any time earlier, the applicant did not take any step in the matter. It is only in the year 2001 when he submitted multiple representations. A reference has also been made to the judgment of the Apex Court in B.S. Bajwa and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors., 1998 SCC (L&S) 611=1998(3) SLJ 28 (SC), and it has been submitted that the issue of seniority has been raised after a lapse of 14 years and the settled matter has been sought to be unsettled after an inordinate and unexplained delay. THE M.A. for condonation of delay and the O.A. as a consequence thereof, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.