Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ajay Kumar Verma (Guard) vs Union Of India on 1 November, 2010
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.
OA-1689/2010
MA-626/2010
MA-627/2010
New Delhi this the 1st day of November, 2010.
Honble Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J)
Honble Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A)
1. Ajay Kumar Verma (Guard)
S/o Shri Radhey Shyam Verma,
Under Station Superintendent
Dehradun (U.A.)
2. Munshilal
S/o Shri Madho Ram,
Head Parcel Clerk
Under Station Superintendent
Dehradun (U.A.)
3. Anil Kumar Bhatnagar
S/o Shri B.B.Bhatnagar
Head Parcel Clerk
Under Station Superintendent
Nazibabad, (U.P.)
4. S.K.Karnwal (Guard)
S/o Shri Sher Singh
Under Station Superintendent
Haridwar (U.A.)
5. Yash Pal Dudeja
S/o Shri A.N.P.Dudeja
Booking Clerk
Under Station Superintendent
Jwalarpur (U.A.)
6. G.P.Srivastava
S/o Late Siddh Gopal Srivastava
CBS, Under Station Superintendent
Moradabad (U.P.)
7. A.K.Bori (Guard)
S/o Shri K.D.Bori
Under Station Superintendent
Haridwar, (U.A.)
8. Anil Kumar Gupta
S/o Late Prem Nihari Lal
Head Parcel Clerk
Under Station Superintendent
9. Jiya Ram Yadav
S/o R.S.Yadav
Head Parcel Clerk
Under Station Superintendent
Roorikee (U.P.)
10. N.K. Batra (Guard)
S/o Madan Lal
Under Station Superintendent
Dehradun (U.A.)
11. Smt. Sunit Sharma
W/o Late Krishan Kumar
S/o Sh. Jagdish Prasad
ERC, Under Station Superintendent
Haridwar, (U.A.) Applicants
(through Sh. Anoop Kumar Srivastava, Advocate)
Versus
1. Union of India
through the General Manager,
Northern Railway, Railway,
Head Quarter, Baroda House,
New Delhi.
2. Divisional Railway Manager,
Moradabad Division
Northern Railway, (DRM Office)
Moradabad (U.P.) . Respondents
(through Sh. R.L. Dhawan, Advocate)
O R D E R
Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A) The applicants have challenged the order dated 29.06.2009 in which their representations for conferment of temporary status and regularization as Mobile Booking Clerks were rejected. They have made a prayer for a direction to the respondents to decide their representation in the light of the order dated 04.06.1990 in OA-896/1988 (Mohinder Kumar and Ors. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.) and confer temporary status after completion of 120 days from the date of initial appointment and regularization after three years of service in that capacity.
2. According to the applicants, they were engaged as Mobile Booking Clerks on different dates in the year 1979 (vide paragraphs 4.1 and 4.13 of the OA). But they were not granted temporary status and subsequent regularization until in the year 1985, when they were appointed on the regular posts of Coaching Clerk through proper selection. Employees similarly situated had filed OA-896/1988 in which the respondent authorities were directed to confer temporary status on the applicants therein on completion of four months of continuous service and to regularize their service on completion of three years. Accordingly, the respondent authorities issued a letter on 24.08.1990 rendering compliance to the aforesaid directions of the Tribunal. Claiming similar benefits, the applicants filed OA-870/2009, in which this Tribunal directed the respondents on 09.04.2008 to dispose of the pending representations of the applicants as per law within a stipulated period. The applicants submitted their representations on 26.05.2009, which were rejected in the impugned order; hence the O.A.
3. The applicants are not only claiming benefits given to other Mobile Booking Clerks in OA No. 896/1988, they are also placing reliance on the subsequent judgment dated 30.04.2004 in OA No. 551/2002 in which a similar direction was given to the department to regularize the applicants therein after completion of three years of continuous service.
4. The respondents have raised preliminary objections of jurisdiction as well as limitation. According to them, the cause of action arose, on the admission of the applicants, in the year 1979. The relief for conferment of temporary status also pertains to that year or there about. The applicants themselves had not given any details about their engagements, nor the exact dates of their appointment as Mobile Booking Clerks. However, taking their averments in the application to be correct, the applicants should have made representations in the year 1979 or there about and in the absence of relief, they should have sought legal redress on time. It is the admitted case that they did not take any steps till filing of OA in 2009. The law is well settled that subsequent representations will not give a fresh cause of action. The learned counsel for respondents cited the judgment/order in OA-1449/2002 (Raghubir Singh & Ors. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.) dated 12.03.2007 in which the issues of jurisdiction as well as limitation of this Tribunal in respect of any cause of action which arose prior to 01.11.1982 had been examined and it was held that the Tribunal would not have any jurisdiction in respect of any cause which dated back to three years prior to the coming into existence of the Tribunal. The following observations in the case of Francis Singh Vs. U.O.I. & Ors. (OA No. 328/2005 decided on 06.03.2007) have been quoted in this judgment:-
7. We are also satisfied that the administration is justified in contending that the application is not maintainable for two reasons. The application is barred by limitation under Section 21(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 as well as the laches which are there as the claims are agitated, after decades. Section 21(2) prescribes a statutory bar, from agitating claims, which is beyond three years from the date of Administrative Tribunals Act had come into force. Therefore, any claims before the year 1981 automatically required to be rejected, because of want of jurisdiction to entertain such grievances. The standing Counsel is also justified in submitting that even otherwise, there is laches, on the part of the applicant. Particular reference was made to a decision reported in 1993(3) SC 1418 (R.C. Samantha v. Union of India). Long delay, which is unexplained, disentitles and adjudication. The application lacks merit and it is to be construed as not maintainable. It is dismissed with no order as to costs.
5. It is further submitted that the present O.A. has been filed in 2010 after 30 years from the time the original cause of action arose. No justifiable reasons have been given by the applicants to explain the abnormal delay in filing the O.A. Therefore, the O.A. is also barred by limitation in terms of Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
6. The respondents have taken another objection that in the absence of details about the dates of appointments of the applicants as Mobile Booking Clerks, the applicants could not have filed a joint O.A.; each one should have agitated his case by filing separate O.A. setting forth the details of his own case. Therefore, in the absence of a common cause of action, the filing of a joint O.A. is not permissible under the law.
7. It is further stated that the applicants might have worked as Mobile Clerks for some time, but the details are not forth coming in the absence of any averment by the applicant. But they were appointed as Coaching Clerks on 01.06.1985 after selection by Railway Service Commission. The applicants accepted the offer of appointment and have been working in that cadre since 1985. Their case is not the same as of other candidates who sought the benefit of temporary status and regularization in the case of Mohinder Kumar & Ors. (supra). The representations of the applicants were rejected on the ground that their cases are not the same and the circular dated 28.04.1990 were not applicable to them.
8. Before we come to the merits of the case, we would like to examine the preliminary objections of the respondents. According to the admission of the applicants the cause of action in respect of conferment of temporary status arose in the year 1979. The case for regularization would have arisen only after temporary status was conferred on the casual employees. Admittedly, the applicants had never agitated for the temporary status or for regularization for many years until filing of OA-870-2009, which was disposed of on 09.04.1990 with a direction to the respondents to decide the representations of the applicants as per rules.
9. It is settled law that subsequent representations will not give a fresh cause of action. Issue of limitation or delay and laches has to be considered with reference to original cause of action.
10. Further, the jurisdiction of this Tribunal does not extend to the period prior to 01.11.1982. Therefore, on jurisdiction ground also the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that this O.A. is not maintainable has considerable force. Besides, the applicants have not filed any application for condonation of delay giving reasons to explain the long delay involved. Judgments made in some other OAs could not be relied on by them as a justifiable ground for this delay. In any case the judgment in the case of Mohinder Kumar & Ors. (supra) was delivered on 04.06.1990, there is no satisfactory reason why this application has been filed claiming similar benefits after a lapse of about 19 years. Honble Supreme Court in Bhoop Sing Vs. UOI & Ors., 1992 (2)SLJ 103 SC has held that a government servant who had legitimate claim to approach the Court for the relief should do it within a reasonable period assuming that no fixed period of limitation existed. This was necessary to avoid dislocating the administrative set-up after functioning for years. Similarly, the Honble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. S.M. Kotrayya & Ors., 1996 SCC (L&S) 1488 has held that belated applications, immediately after coming to know that similar claim has been granted by the Tribunal, was not a proper explanation to justify condonation of delay. The observations of the Honble Supreme Court reads as follows:-
In this case, the explanation offered was that they came to know of the relief granted by the Tribunal in August 1989 and that they filed the petition immediately thereafter. That is not a proper explanation at all. What was required of them to explain under sub-sections (1) and (2) was as to why they could not avail of the remedy of redressal of their grievances before the expiry of the period prescribed under sub-section (1) or (2). In the case of Ratam Chandra Sammanta & Ors. Vs. The U.O.I. & Ors., JT 1993 (3) SC 418 the Apex Court has held that delay deprives the person the remedy available in law. Further, it has been held in Secretary to Government of India & Ors. Vs. Shivram Mahadu Gaikwad, 1995 Suppl.(3) SCC 231that in the absence of an application seeking condonation of delay the limitation would apply.
11. In view of the foregoing discussions, we sustain the objections of the learned counsel for respondents that this application is not maintainable on the grounds of jurisdiction as well as limitation. In the result, the O.A. is dismissed. No costs.
(Dr. A.K. Mishra) (Mrs. Meera Chhibber)
Member(A) Member(J)
/vv/