YASH PAL  Vs DIRECTOR GENERAL, COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC & INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH & ANR -Judgment by Delhi High Court

$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 12.01.2023
+ W.P.(C) 11175/2016
YASH PAL ….. Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person.
Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Amicus Curiae.

Versus

DIRECTOR GENERAL, COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC & INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH & ANR ….. Respondents
Through: None.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G M E N T (oral)
CM APPL. 49961/2022 & REVIEW PETITION 309/2022
1. Present application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking condonation of delay of 1236 days in filing the review petition.
2. Petitioner, who retired from the National Physical Laboratory, a constituent unit of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, had earlier filed an OA No.2990/1991 challenging denial of promotion under the New Recruitment and Assessment Scheme. Thereafter he filed another original application being O.A.1757/1994 challenging the vires of the letter dated 05.03.1983 whereby cut off date for educational qualification was extended till 31.12.1981. The abovesaid O.As. were disposed of by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) on 08.08.1997. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a petition before this Court being W.P.(C) No.4817/1997 and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 16.11.1998. SLP filed against the order of dismissal was also dismissed.
3. The petitioner, in second round, filed another O.A. No.1755/2003 before the Tribunal challenging New Recruitment and Assessment Scheme (NRAS) whereby the same was also dismissed vide order dated 06.05.2004 on the ground of res judicata.
4. Order dated 06.05.2004 and another order passed by the tribunal dated 09.09.2005 relating to promotion under the Merit and Normal Assessment Scheme implemented w.e.f. 01.04.1988 were challenged by the Petitioner, being W.P.(C) Nos.10395/2004 & 23790/2005 and same were dismissed vide judgment dated 23.05.2011 upholding the order passed in O.A.No.1755/2003 on the principle of res judicata and constructive res judicata. Being aggrieved, petitioner preferred another SLP before the Hon�ble Supreme Court being SLP(C) Nos.25894-25895/2011 and the same were also dismissed vide order dated 24.09.2012.
5. The petitioner thereafter initiated the third round of litigation before the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.4190/2013, challenging NRAS for implementing retrospectively with effect from 01.02.1981 and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 09.09.2016 on the ground of res judicata and constructive res judicata with cost to the tune of Rs.50,000/- that was to be paid to the respondents within one month from the date of order. Thereafter, petitioner again filed a petition being W.P.(C) 11175/2016 against the order dated 09.09.2016 seeking remission of matter to CAT for them to rehear on merit and the same was disposed of vide order dated 24.11.2016 with the observation that the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise the same plea and contention once again after the earlier orders have attained finality and the issue once decided cannot be made subject matter of a new litigation, however, the costs imposed vide order dated 09.09.2016 was waived of keeping in view the financial condition of the petitioner. Thereafter petitioner preferred an appeal being SLA(C) No.9077/2017 before the Hon�ble Supreme Court against the abovesaid order dated 24.11.2016, however, the same was dismissed vide order dated 17.04.2017. Hence, the petitioner filed the present review petition with delay of 1236 days.
6. It is averred in the application that the petitioner is a retired person aged 73 years and was not granted any promotion during his service of more than 34 years. Moreover, petitioner was facing financial crises, therefore, on 06.11.2017, requested respondent no.2 CSIR to complete pending promotions. The petitioner was asked to give undertaking and assurance that he would not file any case against respondents in any court. Despite numerous requests, respondents deliberately delayed petitioner�s assessments/promotions on one pretext or the other.
7. To strengthen his arguments on the delay application, he relies upon the judgment of the Hon�ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Senior Vocational Staff Masters Association: AIR 2017 SC 4072: (2017) 9 SCC 3379 as �Judgment in rem� whereby the facts and circumstances of the petitioner�s case are absolutely same.
8. On 21.11.2022, petitioner appeared in person and submitted that though there is a delay in filing the review petition, he has last been given a promotion retrospectively by order dated 30.11.2021 by the respondents themselves. The said order also did not completely redress his grievance and he is still entitled to three retrospective promotions. He prayed that an Amicus be appointed as he was not well versed with the legal provisions.
9. Accordingly, Mr.Ankur Chhibber, learned counsel was appointed as an Amicus Curiae and had informed this Court on 21.12.2022 that by virtue of present review petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 24.11.2016 passed in W.P.(C) 11175/2016 i.e., the present writ petition, whereas the petitioner was supposed to challenge the order dated 23.05.2011 passed in W.P.(C) 10395/2004 wherein order dated 06.05.2004 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. 1755/2003 was challenged. Moreover, the present review petition was filed on 09.11.2022 against the order dated 24.11.2016 accompanied by a delay of 1236 days and the delay has not been properly explained as required under the law.
10. In view of above discussion, though the present Review petition is barred by delay and laches and delay has not been properly explained, we dismiss the application on delay. Consequently, the Review Petition is liable to be rejected.
11. As stated by learned Amicus that the petitioner was supposed to challenge order dated 23.05.2011 passed in W.P.(C) 10395/2004 wherein order dated 06.05.2004 was passed by learned CAT in O.A. No. 1755/2003 instead of order dated 24.11.2016 passed in W.P.(C) 11175/2016, therefore, he is also not permissible to file any such petition on delay and laches.
12. Be that as it may, the petitioner has filed petition after petition and has even approached the Hon�ble Supreme Court twice. It is clear that the petitioner is a habitual litigant who has filed several litigations time and again, thus, wasting the time of the Court.
13. Though heavy cost is liable to be imposed on the petitioner, however given that the petitioner has retired from service and has attained the age of 73 years, we hereby refrain from imposing any costs upon him. However, we hereby make it clear that if the petitioner again files any other petition qua the issue raised in the present review petition, certainly, he will be liable to be punished with very heavy costs.
14. In view of abovesaid discussion, there is no merit in the Review Petition also.
15. Accordingly, the application for condoning the delay and the Review Petition are dismissed.
16. We appreciate the assistance rendered by Mr.Ankur Chhibber, learned Amicus who is appearing in this case.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)
JUDGE

(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
JANUARY 12, 2023/ab
Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/000377

W.P.(C) 11175/2016 Page 1 of 5