RAM SWARUP & ANR.  Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

W.P.(C) 373/2021 Page 1 of 4
$~Suppl.-31
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P. (C) 373/2021
RAM SWARUP & ANR. …..Petitioner s
Through: Mr. Vikas Sethi, Advocate
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …..Respondent s
Through: Mr. Jagjit Singh, Sr. Standing
Counsel for Railways.

% Date of Decision: 13th January, 2021
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON

J U D G M E N T
MANMOHAN , J (Oral) :

CM APPL.994/2021
Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
W.P. (C) 373/2021
1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 28th
November, 2018, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in the
OA no. 2821/2013 to the extent that it has not granted the consequential
benefits of arrears of salary and a llowances from the date on which the
petitioners ha d been granted retrospective promotion.
2021:DHC:144-DBW.P.(C) 373/2021 Page 2 of 4
2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Tribunal vide
Impugned Order granted retrospective promotion to the Petitioners to the
post of Shunting Master, N orthern Railway from the date on which their
juniors were promoted i.e., 14th February 2002 without granting
consequential benefits of arrears of salary and allowances.
3. He further submits that as the impugned action was a continuing
wrong, petitioners are entitled to arrears of salary and allowances right
from the date they were entitled to promotion i.e. from the year 2000 . In
support of his submission, he relies upon the judgment of the Supreme
Court in Union of India and Ors. Vs. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648
wherein it has been held as under: –
“7. To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will
be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is
sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is
sought by an applic ation to the Administrative Tribunal). One of
the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing
wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing
wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in
seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the
continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates
a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to the
exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or
administrative decision which related to or affected several
others also, and if the reopening of the issue would affect the
settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be
entertained. For example, if the issue relates to payment or
refixation of pay or pension, relief may be gra nted in spite of
delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the
claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion, etc.,
affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine
of laches/limitation will be applied. Ins ofar as the consequential
relief of recovery of arrears for a past period is concerned, the
2021:DHC:144-DBW.P.(C) 373/2021 Page 3 of 4
principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply. As
a consequence, the High Courts will restrict the consequential
relief relating to arrears normally to a period of three years
prior to the date of filing of the writ petition. ”

4. A perusal of the paper book reveals that the petitioners had
challenged the promotion of their juniors in 2000 only in the year 2010 ,
by filing O.A. 3847/2010 and that too aft er the petitioners had retired .
Further, the CAT in the impugned order has given cogent reasons for not
granting benefits of arrears of salary and allowances from the date on
which the petitioners ha d been granted retrospective promotion in
accordance wit h the mandate of Union of India and Ors. Vs. Tarsem
Singh (supra) . The relevant portion of the impugned order is reproduced
hereinbelow: –
“8. It is true that there is an inordinate delay in pursuit of the
remedies. At the same time, the grievance of th e applicants that
their juniors were promoted in the year 2000, whereas they have
been promoted in the year 2006, cannot be ignored. The delay
can, at the most, result in denial of past benefit of them. It is
represented that all the applicants have sinc e retired from
service.

9. We, therefore, allow the OA in part, directing that the
promotion of the applicants to the post of Shunting Master
Grade -II shall be treated w.e.f. 14.02.2000, the date on which
their juniors were promoted, but this shall be for the limited
purpose of determination of pension and shall not be entitled to
arrears on that count. However, the benefit shall be extended to
them from January, 2019 onwards. There shall be no order as to
costs.”

2021:DHC:144-DBW.P.(C) 373/2021 Page 4 of 4
5. In the opinion of this Court, the CAT in the impugned order has
balanced the equities and passed a balanced order and directed grant of
benefit from January, 2019 onwards .
6. Consequently, the impugned order calls for no interference in writ
jurisdiction. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismis sed.

MANMOHAN, J

ASHA MENON , J
JANUARY 13, 202 1
KA/TS/rn
2021:DHC:144-DB