Binod Kumar Jha vs. The Union Of INDIA Through The Secretary Deptt Of Revenue

Held

The High Court held that the learned Tribunal erred in dismissing the Original Application on the grounds of delay and laches and limitation. The Court found that the Tribunal had not properly appreciated the factual aspect concerning the accrual of the cause of action. The Court determined that the cause of action would be considered to have accrued in favour of the writ petitioner on the day his claim was rejected based on the objection raised by virtue of Annexure-4 dated 03.06.2019. Since the Tribunal was approached within a period of one year thereafter, the OA was not barred by limitation or suffering from laches. The Court concluded that the impugned order of the Tribunal suffered from an error apparent on the face of the order. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the learned Tribunal for a fresh decision after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties.

Facts

The petitioner, Binod Kumar Jha, a Stenographer Grade-I in CGST & Central Excise, Ranchi Zone, challenged an order dated 24.08.2022 by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Ranchi. The CAT had rejected his Original Application (OA No. 051/00438/2020) on grounds of delay and laches, and limitation. The petitioner's grievance stemmed from his Inter-Commissionerate transfer to Ranchi Zone in 2013, where he was placed below other transferees who had joined later. He contended that his seniority was erroneously fixed, leading to juniors being promoted ahead of him. Despite multiple representations to the authorities regarding the incorrect fixation of seniority and subsequent promotions, he received no satisfactory reply. The CAT's dismissal of his OA led to the present writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned Tribunal erred in dismissing the Original Application on the grounds of delay and laches, and limitation, when the cause of action accrued from the communication dated 03.06.2019 regarding the seniority list? (Question of law) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the cause of action arose when the seniority list was communicated on 03.06.2019, and the OA was filed within one year thereafter, thus not being barred by limitation or suffering from laches. He relied on the principle that the cause of action accrues when a claim is rejected or a right is denied. Revenue/State's contention: The respondents did not explicitly argue on the issue of limitation or laches in the provided text, but the CAT's order implies they raised this objection, leading to the dismissal of the OA.