ORDER
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.
1. In this writ petition, while challenging order dated 03.08.2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in Original Application No. 96/2007, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:
(i). To issue a writ of certiorari and quash the impugned judgement dated 3.8.2007 Annexure-9 passed in OA No. 96/2007 along with MA No. 109/2007 and order dated 27.12.2007 (ANNEXURE 11) passed in RA No. 15/2007 Gowerdhan Lal Berwa v. Union of India and Ors. by the Hon'ble CAT at Jodhpur. The case may be decided on merits and the reliefs claimed in the Original Application may be allowed to the petitioner.
(ii). That any other writ, direction, reliefs, or orders may be passed in favour of the petitioner which may be deemed just and proper under the facts and circumstances of this case.
2. According to facts of the case, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Divisional Accountant at Banswara vide order dated 04.08.1995 and promoted to the post of Divisional Accounts Officer Gr.-II with effect from 30.06.2003 in the first instance. However, vide order dated 06.05.2005, the date of promotion to the post of Divisional Accounts Officer Gr.-II came to be ante dated from 03.06.2003 to 01.01.2001 and name of the petitioner was placed at S. No. 73. Further, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Divisional Accounts Officer Gr.-I vide order dated 27.05.2005 with effect from 01.04.2004 and his name was placed at S. No. 38 in the said order.
3. Aggrieved by the date of promotion on the post of Divisional Accounts Officer Gr. -I with effect from 01.04.2004 instead of 01.01.2004, the petitioner filed representation. However, when no response to the representation was made and some of the DAOs were further promoted to the posts of Sr. DAOs vide letter dated 08.01.2007, the petitioner invoked jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur and filed Original Application No. 96/2007 in which following main prayer was made:
8.2. The promotion granted to the applicant to the post of Divisional Accounts Officer Grade-I, w.e.f. 01.04.2004 may kindly be declared contrary to the rules and respondents be directed to grant promotion to the applicant to the post of Divisional Accounts Officer Grade-I, w.e.f. 01.0 1.2004.
4. Along with the aforesaid original application filed by the petitioner, a miscellaneous application for condonation of delay was also filed, in which, reasons for condoning the delay in filing the original application were mentioned. But, the learned Tribunal dismissed the original application as well as miscellaneous application vide order impugned dated 03.08.2007 in limine as barred by limitation.
5. At the threshold, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in the miscellaneous application filed by him for condonation of delay though he has assigned reason that he was under bona fide impression that the authorities are considering his case in proper manner sympathetically in accordance with rules, therefore, the delay was caused, and, hence it was prayed that the delay in filing the original application may be condoned; but, the learned Tribunal while dismissing the miscellaneous application also dismissed the original application and strictly observed that limitation under Section 21 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 is one year and order impugned in the original application was passed on 27.05.2005 and the original application has been filed after one year i.e., 26.04.2007, therefore, the applicant has not approached either within the prescribed limitation nor he has made representation in time to the respondent department.
6. We have perused the impugned order dated 03.08.2007, Annex.-9 to this writ petition.
7. It is true that order impugned was passed on 27.05.2005 and original application was filed on 26.04.2007 and as per Section 21 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, if any grievance was left with the petitioner with regard to order dated 27.05.2005, then, original application is to be filed within one year but, admittedly, the petitioner preferred the original application on 26.04.2007. In the miscellaneous application filed along with the original application before the Tribunal, it is specifically stated by the petitioner that he was waiting for the decision upon his representation filed by him, therefore, delay was caused.
8. Upon perusal of the order impugned, it is revealed that none of the grounds taken by the petitioner for condonation of delay has been dealt with by the learned Tribunal; and, straight away, in limine the original application has been dismissed only on the ground of delay. In our opinion, for imparting justice technicalities should not normally come in way for adjudicating any matter on merit. Here, in this case, before approaching the Tribunal, admittedly, a representation was made by the petitioner on 20.04.2006 for granting promotion on the post of Divisional Accounts Officer Gr.-I w.e.f. 01.01.2004 instead of 01.04.2004 but the same was not replied till filing the original application; meaning thereby, the petitioner applicant was waiting for the redressal of his grievance and when no response was given up till 26.04.2007 and further promotions were made, then, he preferred original application before the Tribunal.
9. In our opinion, the Tribunal has committed error while rejecting the miscellaneous application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay, so also, in dismissing the original application filed by the petitioner in limine solely on the ground of limitation. The matter was required to be considered on merit while condoning the delay occurred in filing the original application because the relief prayed was only for granting promotion w.e.f. 01.01.2004 instead of 01.04.2004 on the post of Divisional Accounts Officer Gr.-I.
10. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 03.08.2007 is hereby set aside. The miscellaneous application filed by the petitioner applicant for condoning the delay caused in filing the original application is allowed. The matter is remitted to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur for deciding the original application on merit.