CWP No.13245 of 2014 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No.13245 of 2014 Date of Decision: 11.07.2014 Lt.
Colonel Kulbhushan Lal Sharma ....PETITIONER VERSUS Union of India and others ....RESPONDENTS PRESENT: - Mr.Amit Parashar, Advocate for the petitioner.
CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE FATEH DEEP SINGH HEMANT GUPTA, J The challenge in the present writ petition is to an order passed by Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh Regional Bench, Chandimandir on 13.11.2013 whereby an Original Application filed by the petitioner for claiming promotion was dismissed for the reason that it is beyond the period of limitation.
The subsequent application of review was also dismissed on 12.05.2014.
Still aggrieved against the order passed by the Tribunal on 13.11.2013 and 12.05.2014, the petitioner is before this Court in the present writ petiton.
The grievance of the petitioner is that he was due to be considered for promotion in October, 1977 but due to faulty and improper ACRs.he was not found fit for promotion.
The grievance of the petitioner is that incorrect entries in the ACR for the year 1976-77 onwards until May, 1978 resulted into non-empanelment of the petitioner for promotion.
Jyoti 2014.07.17 10:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No.13245 of 2014 2 The sole reliance of the petitioner is to an order passed by this Court in COCP No.337 of 2008 on 07.03.2012.
The contempt petition was filed for the reason that in terms of directions of this Court in CWP No.6995 of 2007, the legal notice was not decided within six months.
In response of contempt notice, it was pointed out that the representation of the petitioner has since been decided on 24.12.2007.
After considering the said fact, the Court observed as under: “The respondent, however, insists that the direction to decide the legal notice, issued by this Court, has been complied with vide communication dated 24.12.2007 though the said communication nowhere deals with the claim of the petitioner regarding promotion after the adveRs.material comprising severe displeasure was quashed by this Court.
Similarly, the aforesaid communication nowhere discloses as to when and how the petitioner's claim for promotion was reviewed as per Regulation 69 of the Rules referred to in the legal notice.
I, therefore, deem it appropriate to clarify that let the above- stated communication dated 24.12.2007 be treated as an 'order' rejecting the petitioner's statutory complaint but at the risk and responsibility of the respondent, with further liberty to the petitioner to impugn the same before an appropriate forum, if so advised.
Since this contempt petition is disposed of today, the respondent shall not take the plea of limitation, delay or laches against challenge to the aforementioned communication dated 24.12.2007.”
.
It is argued that such order of contempt Court was not disputed by the respondents before any authority, therefore, the directions contained therein are final.
Thus the respondents could not raise plea of limitation, which has been accepted by the Tribunal.
Jyoti 2014.07.17 10:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No.13245 of 2014 3 We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and find no merit in the present writ petition.
The period of limitation is statutory fixed under the Limitation Act, 1963 and also under Section 22 of the Arms Forces Tribunal Act, 2007.
The Respondents could rely on such statutory provisions as no part of Statute could be superseded by an observation in the contempt petition.
The Petitioner was ignored for promotion almost two decades earlier.
The stale claims could not be revived on the basis of an observation that too in a contempt petition.
Since, the statue bars the remedy, the order of the Tribunal cannot be said to be illegal or unwarranted.
In view thereof, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition.
Dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (FATEH DEEP SINGH) JUDGE July 11, 2014 jt Jyoti 2014.07.17 10:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh