CWP No.3402 of 2009 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CASE NO.: CWP No.3402 of 2009
DATE OF DECISION: March 4, 2009
AGASTYA KUMAR ...PETITIONER
VERSUS
UNION TERRITORY CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR.
PRESENT: MR. MADAN MOHAN, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER.
ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.
The challenge in the writ petition is to the order dated
15.10.2008, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal vide which the
O.A. filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that respondent No.6 Sh.Rajesh
Bansal was selected through UPSC and was appointed as Assistant
Engineer (Civil) vide offer of appointment dated 7.9.1998, on probation.
The probation was for a period of 2 years. Respondent No.6 was also
selected by the UPSC as Assistant Executive Engineer (Class-I) and he
submitted his resignation from the post of Assistant Engineer Class-II on
3.5.2000. His resignation was accepted by respondent No.1 vide letter
dated 25.5.2000 and respondent No.6 joined as Assistant Engineer Class-I
with the CPWD at New Delhi. Subsequently, on 20.7.2000, respondent
No.6 submitted an application to the Secretary, Engineering Department,
Chandigarh Administration, wherein it was averred that his family
circumstances have changed and he is not in a position to continue with his
new assignment at New Delhi, therefore, he be permitted to withdraw the
resignation from Assistant Engineer, Public Health, Chandigarh
CWP No.3402 of 2009 -2-
Administration. On 1.8.2000, respondent No.3 accorded approval for
withdrawal of resignation submitted by respondent No.6. The petitioner
filed a representation challenging the withdrawal of resignation of
respondent No.6 on 10.11.2003. As the representation was not decided he
filed O.A. No.810/CH/2006 wherein he prayed for quashing of approval
granted to respondent No.6 for withdrawal of his resignation. He also
prayed that the respondents be restrained from assigning seniority to
respondent No.6 over and above the petitioner.
The respondents filed reply to the Original Application wherein
it was averred that as the permission to withdraw the resignation was
granted to respondent No.6 on 1.8.2000, therefore, the Original Application
has been filed highly belatedly, i.e. after more than 6 years and is liable to
be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. It was also averred that as
the applicant was senior to respondent No.6, therefore, he is not effected in
any manner and that the seniority list in which respondent No.6 has been
shown as senior to the applicant is provisional and has not been finalized,
hence the Original Application is premature and is liable to be dismissed. It
was further averred that tendering of resignation, its acceptance and
subsequent withdrawal was the matter between respondent No.6 and official
respondents and the petitioner cannot challenge the same.
The Tribunal after hearing the respective parties to the
litigation dismissed the O.A. filed by the petitioner being time barred and on
the ground of non-maintainability as well as on merits. It is this order
which has been impugned in the present writ petition.
Counsel for the petitioner has contended that withdrawal of
resignation letter by respondent No.6 and its acceptance by the official
CWP No.3402 of 2009 -3-
respondents was not in public interest and is liable to be set aside. It has
further been averred that the official respondents be restrained from
assigning seniority to respondent No.6 over and above the petitioner.
A perusal of the aforementioned facts shows that respondent
No.6 Rajesh Bansal had initially submitted his resignation and as his family
circumstances changed, therefore, he withdrew the same. The tendering of
his resignation by respondent No.6 and its subsequent withdrawal was a
matter between the official respondents and respondent No.6 and the
petitioner has no concern with the acceptance of the withdrawal of
resignation letter by the official respondents. Apart from the above, the
resignation submitted by respondent No.6 was allowed to be withdrawn
vide order date 1.8.2000, whereas the same has been challenged after an
inordinate delay of 6 years. The petitioner did not file any application for
condonation of delay. It is a settled proposition of law that repeated
representations do not have the effect on condoning the delay as has been
held in S.S. Rathore vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported as AIR 1990 SC
10. Moreover the petitioner has already superannuated on 31.12.2006, and
he cannot get any advantage of any seniority list having been issued
thereafter. As far as the question of challenging the earlier seniority list is
concerned, the same was tentative only and not the final seniority list. In
view of the above we find no infirmity in the judgement passed by the
Tribunal and resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed.
(ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA)
JUDGE
March 4, 2009 (NIRMALJIT KAUR)
Gulati JUDGE