LexUNION OF INDIA versus A. DURAIRAJ (D) BY LRS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 981
UNION OF INDIA
v.
A. DURAIRAJ (0) BY LRS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1783 of 2005)
DECEMBER 01, 2010
[R. V. RAVEENDRAN, P. SATHASIVAM AND A. K.
PATNAIK, JJ.)
Constitution of India, 1950:
Article 226 -
Writ petition -
Delay and /aches -
Employee was denied ad hoc promotion as Assistant Signal
and Telecommunication Engineer (ASTE) in 1976 because
A
B
c
of the medical report showing him a~ colour blind - In the year
1998 the employee on acquiring a 8. E. degree was sent for
D
medical examination for being empanelled for promotion -
Report of Medical Board favourable - Representation by
employee in December 1998 that he· was unjustly refused ad
hoc promotion in 1976 -
Rejected - O.A. dismissed by
Tribunal on ground of delay and /aches - High Court in a writ
E
petition directing the employer to pay Rs. 2 lakhs as
compensation - Held: Even if no limitation is prescribed, any
belated challenge would be liable to be rejected on the ground
of delay and /aches, otherwise it would lead to serious·
administrative complications - In the instant case, s. 21 of the · F
1985 Act, prescribes limitation for approaching the Tribunal
- Even otherwise, non-selection in 1976 had attained finality
- High Court having held the 1976 medical report bona fide,
was not justified in granting compensation to the employee
on a vague assumption that he had suffered loss of
opportunity and mental agony - Order of High Court set aside
G
- Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - s.21 - De/ay!Laches
- Compensation.
Service Law:
981
H
982 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A
Promotion to
the post of Asstt.
Signal and
Telecommunication Engineer - Colour vision test - In 1976
medical report indicated the employee colour blind - Ad hoc
promotion denied -
In 1998 and 2000 with advanced
equipments colour blindness found minimal - Subsequently,
B employee promoted - Claim of employee that refusal of ad
hoc promotion to him in 1976 was not just - HELD: The
medical report of 2000 makes it clear that medical report of
1976 was not the erroneous nor was it the result of any
negligence - Rejection of his candidature was for justifiable
c reasons - Besides, the employee had failed in written
examination for promotion held in 1980 and, therefore, would
not have been entitled to regular promotion even if he was
not colour blind - Failure to promote the employee on ad hoc
basis in 1976 had no bearing on his chances of regular
0 promotion - No injustice has occurred to the employee.
The respondent, belonging to a Scheduled Caste,
was, in the year 1976, considered for ad hoc promotion
to the post of Assistant Signal and Telecommunication
Engineer ('ASTE'), but was not found suitable as his
E medical examination indicated that he was colour blind.
In the year 1998, the respondent acquired a B.E. Degree.
He was sent for medical examination for being
empanelled as an eligible candidate for Group 'B'
promotion. The report of the Medical Board was
F favourable and the respondent was promoted as
Assistant Work Manager on ad hoc basis. The
respondent then gave representations dated 28.12.1998
and 3.9.1999 contending that he was unjustly refused ad
hoc promotion in 1976 and, therefore, he should be given
G promotion as ASTE with retrospective effect from 1976
as also all consequential promotions. Since that request
was not acceded to, the respondent filed an O.A. before
the Central Administrative Tribunal, which directed the
authorities to consider the representations. Accordingly,
H the representation of the respondent was considered and
UNION OF INDIA v. A. DURAIRAJ (D) BY LRS.
983
by order dated 8.2.2000, he was directed for a special
medical examination. The respondent challenged the
said order in another 0.A. reiterating the stand taken in
the earlier O.A. and seeking a direction to the authorities
to promote him to the post of Deputy Chief, S& T
Workshop w.e.f. 1991 when, according to him, his
promotion to the said post became due. Pursuant to the
order dated 8.2.2000, the respondent was referred for a
comprehensive testing for colour blindness and a team
A
B
of experts using the latest equipments found his colour
blindness to be minimal, which would not affect his work. c
However, the Tribunal dismissed the respondent's
.application. The respondent then filed a writ petition
b~fore the High Court. Meanwhile, he was given
promotion as ASTC on 22.11Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.