Full Judgment Text
$~41
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 29.04.2022
+ W.P.(C) 6767/2022, CM APPL. 20567/2022 & CM APPL.
20568/2022
BANWARI LAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. M.D. Naushad Alam, Adv.
through DHCLSC.
versus
ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Tushar Gupta and Mr.
Parinay Gupta, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
NAJMI WAZRI, J. (ORAL)
The hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode (physical
and virtual hearing).
1. The petitioner says that his representation before AIIMS
Administration, to be considered for promotion, was pending
for about 13 years, and it is only by letters dated 06.04.2019 and
19.08.2019 he was intimated about the rejection of his
representation.
2. The rationale for dismissal of the petitioner’s application for
condonation of delay has been duly recorded in the impugned
W.P.(C) 6767/2022 Page 1 of 3
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH
KUMAR
Signing Date:10.05.2022
15:31:39
order of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT),
and is reproduced hereunder:-
“…3. The delay involved is 13 years and 11
months. The applicant has stated as many as 11
grounds in the M.A. for condonation of delay. To
be precise, they are (i) illness of the applicant, (ii)
economic hardship, (iii) illness of his wife, (iv)
spending of money on education and marriage of
3 daughters and 1 son, (v) spending of money on
construction of house, (vi) pursuing the remedy
before SC Commission, (vii) the advice given by
the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare for
considering the case, (viii) approaching the
District Legal Services Authority, (ix) his being an
indigent and SC candidate, (x) the false hopes
given by the Legal Cell of the respondent-
institution; and (xi) existence of sufficient cause.
4. We have perused each one of them and find that
except making the abstract and general statement,
the applicant was not able to explain any delay
even in days, let alone months and years.
5. We are not inclined to condone such an
abnormal period. MA. is accordingly dismissed
and thereby the O.A. is also rejected. There shall
be no order as to costs.”
3. The petitioner’s grievance is about his non-promotion relating
to the year 2004. He superannuated in 2006. The 2019 letter of
AIIMS cannot be the reason for condonation of delay of 15
years.
4. The court finds no reason to interfere with the aforesaid order.
W.P.(C) 6767/2022 Page 2 of 3
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH
KUMAR
Signing Date:10.05.2022
15:31:39
5. The petition along with the pending application is dismissed.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
APRIL 29, 2022/dss
W.P.(C) 6767/2022 Page 3 of 3
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH
KUMAR
Signing Date:10.05.2022
15:31:39