Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:2928-DB Court No. - 1 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 507 of 2025 Petitioner :- Dr. Balram Misra Respondent :- U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Defence New Delhi And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Khare,Navneet Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Alok Kumar Tripathi Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. Heard Shri Abhishek Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Paavan Awasthi, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 to 4 and Shri Alok Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5-U.P.S.C. 2. By means of the instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who has attained the age of 85 years, has challenged validity of a judgment and order dated 08.10.2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow, U.P. in Original Application No.332/00413/2012. 3. The aforesaid Original Application was filed by the petitioner challenging the entry given to him in the Annual Confidential Report (A.C.R.), which resulted into his non-recommendation for promotion to the higher post by the Departmental Promotion Committee as the criteria for promotion was 'Very Good' entry in the A.C.R. 4. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that a meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee (D.P.C.) was held on 02/03.01.1997 for making recommendations for promotion to the post of Senior Barrack Store Officer (SBSO). The petitioner was scheduled to retire on 31.03.1997. The petitioner was not recommended for promotion and he filed O.A. No.626 of 1997 before the Principal Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal for holding review D.P.C. This O.A. was dismissed as withdrawn. In the counter affidavit filed in O.A. No.2447 of 1998, it was pleaded that the petitioner was not recommended for promotion as he had been graded as 'Good' in his A.C.R. while persons who had been recommended for promotion, had been graded 'Very Good'. The Original Application No.2447 of 1998 was dismissed on 04.05.2000. 5. The order dated 04.05.2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal was challenged by the petitioner by filing Civil Writ Petition No.5994 of 2000 before the Delhi High Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 17.02.2009. On 01.04.2009, the petitioner filed an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking information about the grading awarded to him in his A.C.R., which information was provided to him through a letter dated 19.05.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation dated 11.09.2009 seeking promotion to the post of SBSO on the ground that his A.C.R.'s grading him 'Good' had not been communicated to him and the same should have been ignored by the D.P.C. The petitioner prayed for holding a review D.P.C. and when this request was not exceeded to, he filed O.A. No.332/00413/2012. 6. The respondents opposed the aforesaid O.A. as being time barred. It was also contended that at the relevant point of time, there was no ruling/law making it mandatory to communicate the grading in A.C.R., below the bench mark grading. 7. The Central Administrative Tribunal held that the petitioner had previously made a prayer for holding a review D.P.C. in O.A. No.2447 of 1998, which was dismissed by means of the judgment and order dated 04.05.2000. The judgment dated 04.05.2000 would operate as constructive res judicata against the petitioner. 8. The Tribunal further held that the applicant had come to know of his A.C.R. grading through the counter affidavit filed in O.A. No.2447 of 1998, which had been considered in the judgment and order dated 04.05.2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In spite of it, the petitioner did not file any representation against his grading and he filed the representation after nine years. The fact that the respondent had sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 after nine years, would be of no avail to the petitioner for extension of limitation period. We find no error or illegality in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 9. The petitioner retired from service on 31.03.1997. He came to know about the grading 'Good' awarded in his A.C.R. through pleadings of the Union of India in O.A. No.2774 of 1998 and his O.A. was dismissed on 04.05.2000. The petitioner filed O.A. No.332/00413/2012 on 11.10.2012, while he had already attained the age of 73 years. The O.A. was dismissed through the impugned order dated 08.10.2024 and this writ petition has been filed when the petitioner has attained the age of 85 years. In these circumstances, no effective relief can be granted to the petitioner. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition which is dismissed accordingly. . (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) (A. R. Masoodi,J.) Order Date :- 17.1.2025 -Amit K-/Ram. Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench