Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Shri S. C. Kohli vs Union Of India Through General Manager on 21 September, 2011
Open Court
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH ALLAHABAD
*****
(THIS THE 21TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2011)
HONBLE MR. A. K. BHARDWAJ, MEMBER (J)
Original Application No. 1160 of 2011
(U/S 19, Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985)
Shri S. C. Kohli, Ex-Driver, & C Grade,
Jhansi Division, Residing at C/o Shri Jageram Bhoriwal, Row House, No. 8, Shree Ram Darshan Co-ope. HSC SOC Ltd., Plot No. 12, Sector 8, Airoli, Navi Mumbai 400708.
Applicant
Present for Applicant : Shri Rakesh Mishra, Advocate
Vs.
1. Union of India through General Manager, North Central Railway, Allahabad.
2. Divisional Railway Manager, North Central Railway, Allahabad.
3. The Senior Divisional Accounts Officer, North Central Railway Jhansi Division, Jhansi.
Respondents
Present for Respondents: Shri R. K. Srivastava, Advocate
O R D E R
It is an admitted fact that the applicants resignation was accepted in the year 1975. Applicant has filed present Original Application making the following prayer:
a) That this Honble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to call for the records of the case from the respondents and after examining the same it may be declared that the applicant is entitled to receive pensionery and other retired benefits accruing for the services. Rendered from 12.06.1956 to 15.03.1975 on the basis of qualifying service.
2. In terms of Rule 26 CCS Pension Rule resignation from service and entails forfeiture of past service. Said rule 26 (1), read as under:-
26. Forfeiture of service on resignation (1) Resignation from a service or a post, unless it is allowed to be withdrawn in the public interest by the Appointing Authority, entails forfeiture of past service.
3. Thus, having resigned from service, the applicant forfeited his past service in the year 1975 i.e. 14.4.1975, even otherwise present Original Application filed after about 36 years is hopelessly barred by limitation and also by laches. Even otherwise also in such cases cause of action had arisen before 3 years prior to the date of constitution of the Tribunal i.e. 01.11.1985, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction. Counsel for the applicant submits that he would be satisfied, if a direction issued to respondents to decide his representation. In the case of C. Jacob vs Director of Geology and mining and another (2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 115, Honble Supreme Court categorically ruled that this Tribunal cannot issue direction to the department to decide stale representation. Relevant excerpt of the order read as under :-
the modus of representation
8. Let us take the hypothetical case of an employee who is terminated from service in 1980. He does not challenge the termination. But nearly two decades later, say in the year 2000, he decides to challenge the termination. He is aware that any such challenge would be rejected at the threshold on the ground of delay (if the application is made before tribunal) or on the ground of delay and laches (if a writ petition is filed before a High Court). Therefore, instead of challenging the termination, he gives a representation requesting that he may be taken back to service. Normally, there will be considerable delay in replying to such representations relating to old matters. Taking advantage of this position, the ex-employee files an application/writ petition before the tribunal/High Court seeking a direction to the employer to consider and dispose of his representation. The tribunals/High Courts routinely allow or dispose of such applications/petitions (many a time even without notice to the other side), without examining the matter on merits, with a direction to consider and dispose of the representation.
9. The courts/tribunals proceed on the assumption, that every citizen deserves a reply to his representation. Secondly, they assume that a mere direction to consider and dispose of the representation does not involve any decision on rights and obligations of parties. Little do they realise the consequences of such a direction to consider. If the representation is considered and accepted, the ex-employee gets a relief, which he would not have got on account of the long delay, all by reason of the direction to consider. If the representation is considered and rejected, the ex-employee files an application/writ petition, not with reference to the original cause of action of 1982, but by treating the rejection of the representation given in 2000, as the cause of action. A prayer is made for quashing the rejection of representation and for grant of the relief claimed in the representation. The tribunals/High Courts routinely entertain such applications/petitions ignoring the huge delay preceding the representation, and proceed to examine the claim on merits and grant relief. In this manner, the bar of limitation or the laches gets obliterated or ignored.
10. Every representation to the Government for relief, may not be replied on merits. Representations relating to matters which have become stale or barred by limitation, can be rejected on that ground alone, without examining the merits of the claim. In regard to representations unrelated to the Department, the reply may be only to inform that the matter did not concern the Department or to inform the appropriate Department. Representations with incomplete particulars may be replied by seeking relevant particulars. The replies to such representations, cannot furnish a fresh cause of action or revive a stale or dead claim.
11. When a direction is issued by a court/tribunal to consider or deal with the representation, usually the directee (person directed) examines the matter on merits, being under the impression that failure to do so may amount to disobedience. When an order is passed considering and rejecting the claim or representation, in compliance with direction of the court or tribunal, such an order does not revive the stale claim, nor amount to some kind of acknowledgement of a jural relationship to give rise to a fresh cause of action.
4. Again in the case of Union of India and Ors. Vs. A. Durairaj (LRs) JT 2011(3)SC254, 2011 (1) Honble Supreme Court ruled that if a person has a justifiable grievance, he should approach the Court within prescribed period of limitation and grant of any relief claimed belatedly leads to serious administrative complications. Para 13 and 14 of the judgment are accepted as under:-
13. It is well settled that anyone who feels aggrieved by non-promotion or non-selection should approach the Court/Tribunal as early as possible. If a person having a justifiable grievance allows the matter to become stale and approaches the Court/Tribunal belatedly, grant of any relief on the basis of such belated application would lead to serious administrative complications to the employer and difficulties to the other employees as it will upset the settled position regarding seniority and promotions which has been granted to others over the years. Further, where a claim is raised beyond a decade or tow from the date of cause of action, the employer will be at a great disadvantage to effectively contest or counter the claim, as the officers who dealt with the matter and/or the relevant records relating to the matter may no longer be available. Therefore, even if no period of limitation is prescribed, any belated challenge would be liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
14. This is a typical case where an employee gives a representation in a matter which is stale land old, after two decades and gets a direction of the Tribunal to consider and dispose of the same; and thereafter again approaches the tribunal alleging that there is delay in disposal of the representation (or if there is an order rejecting the representation, then file an application to challenge the rejection, treating the date of rejection of the representation as the date of cause of action). This Court had occasion to examine such situations in Union of India Vs. M.K. Sarkar 2010 (2) SCC 58 and held as follows:
The order of the Tribunal allowing the first application of Respondent without examining the merits, and directing Appellants to consider his representation has given rise to unnecessary litigation and avoidable complications. x when a belated representation in regard to a stale or dead issue/dispute is considered and decided, in compliance with a direction by the Court/Tribunal to do so, the date of such decision can not be considered as furnishing a fresh cause of action for reviving the dead issue or time-barred dispute. The issue of limitation or delay and laches should be considered with reference to the original cause of action and not with reference to the date on which an order is passed in compliance with a courts direction. Neither a courts direction to consider a representation issued without examining the merits, nor a decision given in compliance with such direction, will extend the limitation, or erase the delay and laches.
5. Following the aforementioned decision of Honble Supreme Court and being bound by the same I dismiss the O.A. (A.K.Bhardwaj) Member (J) Shashi ??
??
??
??
5