Bhawani Singh v. Union Of India

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN ATJODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15916/2021 Bhawani Singh S/o Sh. Kuku Singh, Aged About 37 Years, R/oD.S. Colony, Near Medical College, Jodhpur, Last Employed OnThe Post Of Computer Operator, In The Office Of CommissionerOf Income Tax-II, Jodhpur ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary to Govt. Of India,Minister Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block,New Delhi.Minister Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block,New Delhi. 2. Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, C.R.Building, Statute Circle, B.D. Road, Jaipur.Building, Statute Circle, B.D. Road, Jaipur. 3. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Paota C Road, Jodhpur----Respondents----Respondents For Petitioner(s): Mr. Harish PurohitFor Respondent(s): HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 02/12/2021By the Court : Per Hon’ble Jain, J. By way of the present writ petition under Articles 226 and227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged theimpugned order dated 09.1.2019 passed by the learned CentralAdministrative Tribunal, Jodhpur, Bench Jodhpur (hereinafterreferred to as the ‘CAT’), in miscellaneous application No.290/00169/2018, whereby the miscellaneous application(Execution) filed by the petitioner was dismissed. The facts for adjudication of the writ petition are stated asbelow:- The petitioner before termination was employed on the postof Computer Operator in the office of Commissioner, Income Tax -II, Jodhpur in the year 2012. The petitioner and the four othersapproached the CAT challenging their termination and seekingdirection for not replacing them by any other source except byway of regular appointment. The learned Tribunal by common order dated 29.10.2012decided the original application of the applicants alongwith severalother original applications filed by similarly situated persons andthe applicants and other similarly situated persons were takenback on duty and continued in service by the respondents. It is stated by the petitioner that the petitioner after lapse ofone year on 22.10.2013 filed a representation and thereafter on14.9.2017, the petitioner preferred a contempt petition before theCAT under Section 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act,1985 but the same was dismissed vide order dated 14.9.2017. On 12.12.2017, the petitioner filed a review application butthe same also came to be dismissed by circulation. Again on the same set of cause of action, the petitioner fileda miscellaneous application numbering 290/169/2018,290/170/2018 for execution of the order dated 29.10.2012 in theyear 2018 along with the application for condonation of delay andit was prayed before the Tribunal to direct the respondents to re-engage the petitioner as a casual employee. It is important to submit that the said action was taken bythe petitioner in the year 2018. On these facts the petitioner claimed for re-appointment inthe light of order dated 29.10.2012 passed by the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal vide order dated 09.1.2019 afterhearing the parties dismissed the application on the ground that incompliance of order dated 29.10.2012, the petitioner-applicanthad never turned up to join duties. He was never denied toresume his duties by the respondents. The claim of the petitioner is that when similarly situatedpersons in compliance of the order dated 29.10.2012 werepermitted to join the office, denial of indulgence to him in joiningduties is discriminatory, illegal and unwarranted specifically whenthe order passed by the learned Tribunal was in his favor and theSLP filed by Union of India in the case of Mahendra Singh & Orshas been dismissed on 15.02.2016. The learned Tribunal vide order dated 09.1.2019 afterhearing the parties dismissed the application on the ground that incompliance of order dated 29.10.2012, the petitioner-applicanthad never turned up to join duties. He was never denied toresume his duties by the respondents. The claim of the petitioner is that when similarly situatedpersons in compliance of the order dated 29.10.2012 werepermitted to join the office, denial of indulgence to him in joiningduties is discriminatory, illegal and unwarranted specifically whenthe order passed by the learned Tribunal was in his favor and theSLP filed by Union of India in the case of Mahendra Singh & Orshas been dismissed on 15.02.2016. After considering the arguments advanced by petitioner’scounsel, perusal of memo of writ petition and the impugned order,we are of the view that the petitioner has made an attempt to re-agitate the issue which was concluded by the learned Tribunal withdismissal of his contempt petition in the year 2017. Not only that,the Tribunal has specifically stated that the conduct of thepetitioner does not entitle him for grant of prayer requested byhim on account of the fact that he never showed any willingnessto resume duties in the office of respondent which is reflectedfrom the fact that inspite of passing of favorable order by learnedCAT on 29.10.2012, he has never appeared at the office nor didhe file any execution application or raise any grievance. Merely on22.10.2013 a letter was filed which was neither pursued nor anyattempt to join was made. It was only in the year 2018 that the petitioner has again re-agitated the issue contrary to provisions ofSection 21 and 27 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 whichhas set out limitation, qua execution and raising grievance againstany cause, order etc. The act of petitioner in approaching theTribunal after six years is time barred as per the provisions ofSection 21 and 27 of Act of 1985. On an overall consideration of the reasoning given by thelearned Tribunal and the legal provisions and the facts of the case,we are of the opinion that the order dated 09.01.2019 does notcall for any interference and is upheld. The application filed by thepetitioner before the Tribunal was rightly dismissed and notentertained. The present writ petition being devoid of merit is accordinglydismissed. (SAMEER JAIN),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J Amit/ 37