O.A. No. 472/2010, M.A. No. 318/2010. Case: 1. Bhagirath Sharma, 2. Satish Kumar, 3. Mahavir Prasad Rohilla, 4. Kukhpal Singh Vs Delhi Development Authority, through its Vice Chairman. Central Administrative Tribunal

Case NumberO.A. No. 472/2010, M.A. No. 318/2010
CounselMalaya Chand, Rajinder Khattar
JudgesShanker Raju (Judicial Member) & Dr. Veena Chhotray (Accountant Member), JJ.
IssueAdministrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19
Judgement DateJuly 22, 2010
CourtCentral Administrative Tribunal

Judgment:

Dr. Veena Chhotray (Accountant Member), (Principal Bench New Delhi)

  1. MA No. 318/2010 filed in the OA under Rule 4(5) of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 for joining in a single application is allowed.

    Applicants (4 in numbers) working as UDCs under the DDA have through this OA, filed under Section 19 of the AT Act, challenged denial of 2nd ACP to them. The applicants who had initially joined as work-charge Group 'D' employees, were subsequently appointed as LDCs and then promoted as UDCs. The issue in this case is whether their appointment as LDCs in the year 1981 was by way of direct recruitment or promotion. Contrary stands have been taken by the applicants and the Respondents.

    By way of relief, the OA seeks a direction for award of 2nd ACP to the applicants from the date of their eligibility along with arrears and interest @ 12% per annum.

  2. This is the second round of litigation. The applicants earlier vide the OA No. 2892/2009 had approached the Tribunal for similar relief. However, this OA was disposed vide an order dated 13.10.2009 with a direction for disposal of the representation by the applicants dated 2.4.2009 as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six weeks with liberty to the applicants to file a fresh OA in case their grievance still persisted. In pursuance of the directions, the respondents passed an order dated 24.12.2009 (Annexure A/1) disposing the said representation; however, after a detailed consideration rejecting the same. In the meanwhile the applicants had approached the Tribunal in a Contempt Petition dated 6.7.2009 which was disposed vide order dated 20.01.2010 in view of the aforesaid order passed by the respondents.

  3. On behalf of the applicants, learned counsel, Shri Malaya Chand and for the respondent, the learned counsel, Shri Rajinder Khattar would appear before us. We are passing this order after considering the oral submissions by both the learned counsels as well as after careful examination of the material on record.

  4. At this point, we find it apt to mention regarding the preliminary objections raised by the respondents on the ground of the instant OA being barred by limitation. However, in view of the facts narrated above, and the decision in the aforesaid OA and the order passed in the CP, we do not find this objection as tenable. Even otherwise to meet the interest of justice, we find the plea as hyper- technical and hence not acceptable. The OA is, therefore...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT