Raghubir Singh Vs. Union of India and Others Through the Secretary and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/938587
CourtCentral Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided OnMay-20-2009
Case NumberOA-1199 of 2008
Judge N.D. DAYAL, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER; THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE DHARAM PAUL SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AppellantRaghubir Singh
RespondentUnion of India and Others Through the Secretary and Another
Advocates:For the Appellant: M.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the Respondent: . J.B. Mudgil, Advocate.
Excerpt:
n.d. dayal, member(a) we have heard the learned counsel and perused the pleadings. when this matter was taken up for hearing on 06.05.2009, it was found that no reply had been filed and the right to file the same stood forfeited in terms of orders passed on 24.04.2009. liberty was granted by court for written arguments/documents to be submitted. 2. the learned counsel for the applicant has at the outset emphasized that the main relief being sought in this o.a. is for extension of the benefits of judgment dated 20.12.1990 in oa-145/1990 to the applicant, however, subsequently it was submitted that the relief’s contained in para-8 of the oa for setting aside the impugned order dated 29.06.2007 as well as for restoration of increments withdrawn in august 1987 were also being pressed. 3. the learned counsel for the applicant stated that by oa-145/1990 decided on 20.12.1990 the co-ordinate bench of this tribunal at ernakulam has granted certain benefits which the applicant is also seeking. to a specific query, it could not be clarified as to why the applicant had approached the tribunal only in 2008 in this regard. nor was the relevance of the decision in this o.a. to the facts of the present case explained. 4. it is submitted that the applicant is aggrieved with the impugned order, which is dated 29.06.2007 and by which the review of pay and the withdrawal of 5 advance increments of hardship on 08.09.1987 was justified in the light of dopandt o.m. dated 10.08.1987, and similarity with cases of others was found not established. the impugned order also reveals that the applicant had previously filed a case against re-fixation of his pay in chandigarh bench of this tribunal vide oa-658/hr/87 which was rejected on 25.07.1994 and thereafter slp no. 1709/1995 against such order had been filed in the apex court which was also dismissed on 14.08.1995. a mention of the oa and the slp is found in para-5(e) of the oa where it is stated that the issue raised in the oa never attained finality as the slp was dismissed in default. a perusal of the documents annexed with the oa does not reveal any copy of oa-658/hr/87 or the decision of the hon’ble supreme court on the slp. noticeably copies of both are mentioned in the impugned order as attached thereto, but have not been enclosed with it by the applicant. 5. the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted copy of oa-658/hr/87 decided on 25.07.1994 by the chandigarh bench of this tribunal. it carries no mention of oa-145/1990. it is also noticed there from that by mistake the applicant had been given five increments as hardship although his pay and pension was more than the last pay drawn. therefore, with reference to clarifications of government vide letters dated 10.08.1987 and 18.09.1987 the advance increments were cancelled. it was held that an administrative authority can always correct a bona fide mistake and therefore the oa was rejected. the respondents have also given a copy of what seems to be record of proceedings of the apex court in slp no. 1709/95 dated 14.08.1995 dismissing slp as none appeared for petitioner. in the present oa the applicant has again made the same grievance. as such, if the applicant had already raised the matter substantially in issue in the present o.a. before the chandigarh bench of this tribunal and which was rejected by it, it would not be open to him to once again file the present oa as barred by the principles of resjudicata and constructive resjudicata and therefore liable to be dismissed on this account itself. the applicant has stated in the oa that the slp was dismissed in default but the document enclosed by him at annexure a-3 is a copy of the record of proceedings of the apex court without date which shows that at one stage notices were issued on slp and stay application while staying the recovery. 6. in view of the above, we are constrained to observe that the applicant has not come with clean hand and appears to have concealed more than what he has revealed in an attempt to mislead and suppress the facts. in our considered opinion this is an example of wrong and improper use of the process of law. 7. the o.a. is dismissed. the applicant shall pay costs of rs. 2000/- within two weeks to the central administrative tribunal, principal bench library for purchase of books.
Judgment:

N.D. Dayal, Member(A)

We have heard the learned counsel and perused the pleadings. When this matter was taken up for hearing on 06.05.2009, it was found that no reply had been filed and the right to file the same stood forfeited in terms of orders passed on 24.04.2009. Liberty was granted by Court for written arguments/documents to be submitted.

2. The learned counsel for the applicant has at the outset emphasized that the main relief being sought in this O.A. is for extension of the benefits of judgment dated 20.12.1990 in OA-145/1990 to the applicant, however, subsequently it was submitted that the relief’s contained in Para-8 of the OA for setting aside the impugned order dated 29.06.2007 as well as for restoration of increments withdrawn in August 1987 were also being pressed.

3. The learned counsel for the applicant stated that by OA-145/1990 decided on 20.12.1990 the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Ernakulam has granted certain benefits which the applicant is also seeking. To a specific query, it could not be clarified as to why the applicant had approached the Tribunal only in 2008 in this regard. Nor was the relevance of the decision in this O.A. to the facts of the present case explained.

4. It is submitted that the applicant is aggrieved with the impugned order, which is dated 29.06.2007 and by which the review of pay and the withdrawal of 5 advance increments of hardship on 08.09.1987 was justified in the light of DoPandT O.M. dated 10.08.1987, and similarity with cases of others was found not established. The impugned order also reveals that the applicant had previously filed a case against re-fixation of his pay in Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal vide OA-658/HR/87 which was rejected on 25.07.1994 and thereafter SLP No. 1709/1995 against such order had been filed in the Apex Court which was also dismissed on 14.08.1995. A mention of the OA and the SLP is found in Para-5(E) of the OA where it is stated that the issue raised in the OA never attained finality as the SLP was dismissed in default. A perusal of the documents annexed with the OA does not reveal any copy of OA-658/HR/87 or the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the SLP. Noticeably copies of both are mentioned in the impugned order as attached thereto, but have not been enclosed with it by the applicant.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted copy of OA-658/HR/87 decided on 25.07.1994 by the Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal. It carries no mention of OA-145/1990. It is also noticed there from that by mistake the applicant had been given five increments as hardship although his pay and pension was more than the last pay drawn. Therefore, with reference to clarifications of Government vide letters dated 10.08.1987 and 18.09.1987 the advance increments were cancelled. It was held that an administrative authority can always correct a bona fide mistake and therefore the OA was rejected. The respondents have also given a copy of what seems to be record of proceedings of the Apex Court in SLP No. 1709/95 dated 14.08.1995 dismissing SLP as none appeared for petitioner. In the present OA the applicant has again made the same grievance. As such, if the applicant had already raised the matter substantially in issue in the present O.A. before the Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal and which was rejected by it, it would not be open to him to once again file the present OA as barred by the principles of resjudicata and constructive resjudicata and therefore liable to be dismissed on this account itself. The applicant has stated in the OA that the SLP was dismissed in default but the document enclosed by him at Annexure A-3 is a copy of the record of proceedings of the Apex Court without date which shows that at one stage notices were issued on SLP and stay application while staying the recovery.

6. In view of the above, we are constrained to observe that the applicant has not come with clean hand and appears to have concealed more than what he has revealed in an attempt to mislead and suppress the facts. In our considered opinion this is an example of wrong and improper use of the process of law.

7. The O.A. is dismissed. The applicant shall pay costs of Rs. 2000/- within two weeks to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench Library for purchase of books.