Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
Gauri Shankar Das vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd on 17 April, 2025
1 O.A.260/00122 of 2020
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
O.A.No. 260/00122 of 2020
Reserved on 16.04.2025 Pronounced on :17.04.2025
Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Sudhi Ranjan Mishra, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Pramod Kumar Das, Member (A)
1. Gouri Shankar Das, aged about 48 years, S/o: Sitaram Das,
At-Kolab Colony, Po/Ps/Dist-Koraput, State-Odisha.
2. Bhima Jani, aged about 47 years, S/o Dambaru Jani, Vill-
Khariguda, P.o-Kendar, Ps/Dist-Koraput, State- Odisha.
3. V.V. Seshagiri, aged about 49 years, S/o Late V.V.
Sivaramayya, Aditya Nagar, Jeypore Road, Dist-Koraput,
State- Odisha.
4. Gopal Pani, aged about 39 years, S/o Lakhana Pani, Vill/Po-
Bhaliasahi, PS/ Dist-Koraput, State- Odisha.
5. V. Harihar Prasad aged abut 45 years, S/o Late V.V.
Sivaramayya, Aditya Nagar, Jeypore Road, Dist-Koraput
State- Odisha.
All are at present working as Telecom Assistant (previously
known as Regular Mazdoor) in the office of General
Manager, Telecom Koraput, At/Po/PS/Dist- Koraput. State-
Odisha.
......Applicants
VERSUS
1. Union of India, represented through Secretary-cum-
Chairman, Govt. of India Telecommunication and IT, 20
Ashoka Road, Sanchar Bhawan, New Delhi.
2 O.A.260/00122 of 2020
2. The Principal General Manager, Establishment BSNL,
Corporate Office, Bharat Sanchar Bhavan, H.C. Mathur
lane, Janpath, New Delhi-110001,
3. Chief Managing Director, Bharat Sanchar Nigam, New
Delhi-110001
4. The Chief General Manager, Telecom Sanchar Bhawan,
Odisha Circle, AT/PO- Bhubaneswar, Dist- Khurda.
5. General Manager, Telecom, BSNL, Koraput Division,
Koraput, PO/PS/Dist-Koraput.
......Respondents
For the applicant : Mr. S.K. Ojha, Counsel
For the respondents : Mr. K.C. Kanungo, Counsel
O R D E R
SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J):
Challenging the inaction of the authorities in regularizing the services of the applicants against the post of Telecom Assistant (previously known as Regular Mazdoor), w.e.f. the respective dates of their joining in service, the instant O.A. has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 with the following relief(s):-
"i) Let a direction be issued to the respondents to regularize the applicants against the post of Telecom Assistants (previously named as Regular Mazdoor) with effect from the respective date of their joining in service and 3 O.A.260/00122 of 2020 they may be given all the service benefits attached to the said post.
ii) Let it be declared that the order dtd.04.03.2004 issued by the Corporate Office is not a bar in regularizing the applicants against the post they are holding and
iii) Let the applicants be granted with any other relief(s) they are entitled to and also pass such other order/orders as may be deemed fit and proper for the interest of justice."
2. The facts of the case is that all the five applicants joined in service as Casual Labourer in the year 1996-98. According to Ld. Counsel for the applicants, the applicant Nos. 1, 2, and 4 have been working as casual labourers uninterruptedly since 1996 and applicant Nos. 3 and 5 since 1998 under General Manager, Telecom Koraput / Respondent No.5. It is submitted that, applicant No.5 joined in service as Casual Labourer in the year 1998 and continued till 2008. The CGM, Telcom, Odisha (Respondent No.4) vide letter dated 10/12.10.2000 (A/1) directed the Head of all the Telecom Division of Odisha to submit the details of the casual employees working under them so that the same will be placed before the Committee to be constituted for verification of the cases of the casual employee for consideration of their regularization in BSNL. In turn, respondent No.5 sent the names of the casual labourers working 4 O.A.260/00122 of 2020 under him. Thereafter, basing upon the letter dated 02.11.2001 of DoT, New Delhi, the Respondent No.4 vide letter dated 27.11.2001 (A/2) constituted a committee at Circle level to examine the case of casual employees for regularization. It is submitted by the applicant that vide letter dated 24.04.2002(A/3) the CGMT, Odisha informed about the meeting of higher officers to be held to discuss about the regularization of casual employees working in the State of Odisha. On 06.05.2002 (A/4), the CGMT, Odisha informed about the decision taken by the higher officers about regularization of casual employees. Thereafter, vide letter dated 02.08.2002 (A/5) the CGMT, Odisha informed to all Division to visit the different units and to verify the claim of the casual employees. It is submitted by the applicant that vide letter dated 03.10.2003(A/6) the head of Telecom Divn., Koraput after verification of service particulars of the employees including the applicants, submitted the report to CGMT, Odisha requesting to consider their case for regularization.
3. It is contended by the applicant that vide letter dated 04.03.2004 (A/7) the CGMT, Odisha directed all Divn. to fix a suitable date for receiving the applications from the casual employees for regularization. It is submitted by the applicant that vide letter dated 30.03.2007(Annexure-A/8) the CGMT, Odisha requested the 5 O.A.260/00122 of 2020 D.D.C. (Establishment), BSNL, New Delhi to consider the case of casual employees for their regularization. Despite the fact that the case of the said casual labourers were not taken into consideration including the present applicants, they have filed representations before the authority, which is pending since then. It is contended that the applicants have been discharging their duties like that of regular employees; the duties performed by them are perennial in nature; and their long continuance itself establishes the requirement of their hands and creation of posts etc. and, that, their non- regularization is highly illegal and arbitrary. Since no action was taken on their representation, they have filed the instant O.A. with the prayers as made above.
4. Respondents filed their counter contesting/objecting the very maintainability of this OA being hit by the delay, laches/limitation as also on merit.
5. According to the Ld. Counsel for the respondents, in compliance of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a scheme known as Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) was issued in the year 1989 and, considering the provisions made therein, regularization of temporary status casual mazdoors was done by the DoT. Subsequently, as per the order of the government 6 O.A.260/00122 of 2020 dated 29.09.2000, the Telecom department was corporatized as BSNL w.e.f. 01.10.2000 and, at that relevant point of time, it was decided by the DoT and issued letter dated 29.09.2000 (R/5)for regularization of casual labourers including those, who have been granted temporary status subject to their eligibility and availability of posts, viz. (i) All casual labourers who were granted temporary status upto the issuance of Orders dated 12.02.1999, circulated vide letter dated 12.02.1999 and further vide letter dated 09.06.2000; (ii) All full time casual labourers as indicated in letter dated 29.09.2000; (iii) All part time causal labourers, who were working for four or more hours per day and converted to full time casual labourers vide letter dated 16.09.1999; (iv) All part time casual labourers who were working for less than four hours per day and converted into full time causal labourers vide letter dated 25.08.2000; and (v) All Ayas and Supervisors converted into full time causal labourers as per order dated 29.09.2000. It is submitted that in compliance of the aforesaid instruction it was expected that all casual labourers will be regularized. However, the Circle Offices intimated that many casual labourers were left out and were yet to be regularized. Even BSNL management was also in the process to regularize such left out casual labourers and, while the matter stood thus, the decision of the 7 O.A.260/00122 of 2020 Hon'ble Apex Court dated 10.04.2006 in Civil Appeal No. 3595-3612 of 1999 (State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Uma Devi) holding that regularization of daily rated workers engaged dehors the provisions of recruitment rules is untenable, came into effect. It is submitted by him that the applicants were engaged through different contractors at different time under Telecom district of Koraput Division since 1996. Their wages, contribution was EPF and ESI were being paid/deposited by the contractors. They were never engaged by BSNL management through any recruitment process. They were not under any muster roll of the BSNL.
6. According to the respondents, when BSNL was formed as a Company being carved out of DoT on 01.10.2000, the DoT issued a letter dated 29.09.2000 to regularize left out full time casual labourers. Accordingly, Koraput Telecom District forwarded a list of casual/contractual labourers for scrutiny and consideration by the circle office, Bhubaneswar. A list of 1437 casual labourers were listed and out of which 455 casual labourers, were approved. The Applicants were placed at Sl. No. 372, 367, 375, 371 & 374 respectively in that list. Due to various court cases being filed by the casual labourers, the process of regularization was kept in abeyance vide order dated 04.03.2004 and meanwhile the decision in the case 8 O.A.260/00122 of 2020 of Umadevi (supra) and in the case of BSNL Vs. Teja Singh dated 16.01.2009 in SLP (C) No.7803/2006 came into effect holding that regularization of casual labourers engaged dehors the rules is untenable. Thereafter, no casual engagement is made by the BSNL and all types of technical and non-technical work of BSNL are being carried out through regular employees of BSNL and some maintenance and developmental works are being done through approved labour contractor on job contract basis. The applicants are engaged through contractor to whom BSNL awarded work contract.
7. It is contended by the respondents that the facts and circumstances of the case of Sri Pitambar Nanda is totally different from the case of the present applicants. Sri Pitambar Nanda was initially engaged by the field staff as back as 07.11.1985 and was disengaged on 30.04.1987. Thereafter he filed O.A. No.18/89 before this Tribunal. In obedience to the order of this Tribunal dated 08.12.89 the respondents again engaged him in the year 1992. Sri Nanda was not regularized as Regular Mazdoor(RM) in BSNL rather he appeared in LDCE and got selected for a group 'C' equivalent post vide order dated 17.11.17 (A/17). Thus the case of the present applicants is totally different from that of Sri Pitambar Nanda case. It is further contended by the respondents that the 9 O.A.260/00122 of 2020 applicants have falsely submitted that 40 candidates like them out of said 455 enlisted employees, were promoted to the cadre of Telecom Technician, despite the order of kept in abeyance. However, the fact is that none of the 40 candidates except Sri Pitambar Nanda figure in the said list of 455 and they are BSNL employees.
8. The appointment of 17 casual labourers was done by CGM Microwave Project Circle, Kolkata, which is a complete separate wing having headquarters at Kolkata, in the year 2001 before the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court came into effect in Uma Devi case. It has been submitted that W.P(C) No. 3140/2010 (R/1) filed by casual labourers including the present applicants before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa was disposed of on 04.03.2010 directing to take a decision in terms of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra) and the decision taken thereon has also been intimated to the applicants therein. The applicants have no right for regularization, the Ld. Counsel for the respondents has also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the following cases:
(i) M.P.State Coop. Bank Ltd. Bhopal Vs. Nanuram Yadav & Ors, (2007) 8 SCC 264;
(ii) Director, Institute of Management Devlopment, U.P. vs Smt. Pushpa Srivastav, (1992) 4 SCC 33;
10 O.A.260/00122 of 2020
(iii) Satya Prakash & Ors Vs. State of Bihar & Ors, (2010) 4 SCC 179;
(iv) Mahesh Chandra Verma & Ors Vs. State of Jharkhand, Civil Appeal No. 6647 of 2012 dated 19.09.2012.
(v) Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs Uma Devi & Ors., 2006 SCC (L&S) 753;
(vi) Nanda Kumar Vs State of Bihar & Ors, Civil Appeal No. 2835/2014 dated 25.02.2014;
(vii) Upendra Sing Vs State of Bihar & Ors, Civil Appeal No. 2356 of 20-18 dated 23.02.2018;
(viii) Vobhuti Shankar Pandey Vs State of M.P. & Ors, Civil Apepal No. 916 of 2023 arising out of SLP(C) 10519 of 2020 dated 08.02.2020;
(ix) Himanshu Parida & Ors Vs UOI & Ors, W.P.C. No. 1276/2014 dated 24.07.2024;
(x) BSNL Vs Sri Deo Kumar Rai, Civil Appeal Nos 7707-7708 of 2021 decided on 14.12.2021;
(xi) BSNL Vs Sri Narayan Trimmapa Madivel, Civil Appeal No 6176 of 2008 arising out of SLP 14975 of 2005 decided on 17.10.2008;
(xii) Tahir Ali Vs UOI & Ors in Special Leave Appeal 31085/2009 dated 07.07.2010;
(xiii) BSNL Vs Teja Singh, Civil Appeal No. 292 of 2009 decided on 16.01.2009;
11 O.A.260/00122 of 2020
9. It is submitted that some of the similarly situated persons came up before this Tribunal praying direction to the respondents to lift the abeyance order dated 04.03.2024 and to implement the order of regularization dated 03.10.2003. This Tribunal after considering the totality of the matter dismissed the said OAs/MAs on the ground of limitation and the present case being one and the same, this OA is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay, laches/limitation. The decisions referred to in this regard are as under:
(i) Order dated 05.01.2024 in OA No. 294/2018 (D.Kisan Vs. BSNL);
(ii) Order dated 05.01.2024 in OA No. 87/2019 (M.Nayak Vs. BSNL);
(iii) Order dated 09.04.2024 in MA 541/2020 arising out of OA No. 443/2020 ( Giridhari Behera Vs. BSNL);
(iv) Order dated 15.07.2024 in MA 409 of 2022 arising out of OA No. 143/2022 ( D.Kisan Vs. BSNL;
(v) Order dated 15.07.2024 in MA 406/2022 arising out of OA No. 144/2022 ( A.Venkata Raju Vs. BSNL);
(vi) Order dated 15.07.2024 in MA 407/2022 arising out of OA No. 145/2022 (Sh Krishna Subba Raju Vs. BSNL);
(vii) Order dated 15.07.2024 in MA 405/2022 arising out of OA No. 146/2022 ( M.Dharma Rao Vs. BSNL);
12 O.A.260/00122 of 2020
(viii) Order dated 15.07.2024 in MA 408/2022 arising out of OA No. 147/2022 ( Padma Charan Dalabehera Vs. BSNL);
10. Accordingly, the respondents have submitted that this OA is liable to be dismissed both on the ground of limitation so also on merit.
11. Ld. Counsel for the applicants submitted that the work discharged by the applicant is perennial in nature and having discharged the duties with utmost satisfaction of the authorities for last 22 years. According to him, the applicants were found eligible for regularization but for the reason that the process of regularization was kept in abeyance, they were deprived of their right for regularization and thus the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi has no application in the present case. To justify that the applicants are entitled for regularization, they have placed reliance on the decisions as under:
1.(2018) 1 SCC (L&S) 522. (Jivan Lal Vrs. Pravin Krishna)
2. (2018) 1 SCC (L&S) 767. (Hari Das Vrs. Director State Project)
3. W.P. No.2816/2016 (M.P.High Court, disp. of on 13.04.2017) (Shyam Kumar Yadav Vrs. State of M.P.) 13 O.A.260/00122 of 2020
4. W.A. No.806/2017 (M.P.High Court, disp. of on 16.03.2018) (State of M.P. Vrs. Shyam Kumar Yadav)
5. SLP No.25609/2018 (Disp. of on 22.07.2024) (State of M.P. Vrs. Shyam Kumar Yadav)
6. W.P.(C) No.26542/2022 (Disp. of on 07.01.2025) (Krushna Chandra Bhoi Vrs. State of Odisha)
7. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826. (Jaggo Vrs. Union of India)
8. 2025 INSC 144.(Sripal & Anr Vrs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad)
12. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the applicants that the names of the applicants are still available in the roll of the casual labourers in the D.E.(Administration) Office of GMTD, Koraput and, therefore, the grounds of the respondents that this OA is hit by the law of limitation is not tenable.
13. Since the respondents/Ld. Counsel for the respondents raised and opposed the very maintainability of this OA on the ground of delay, laches/limitation, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of D.C.S. Negi Vs. Union of India & others (Civil Appeal No. 7956 of 2011) decided on 7.3.2011, this Tribunal needs to deal with the said point before proceeding ahead to adjudicate the merits of the matter.
14 O.A.260/00122 of 2020
14. The prayer of the applicant in this OA is to absorb them in the post of Group-D (non-test category) or regular mazdoor as left out cases w.e.f. the date of their respective date of their joining in service and they may be given all the service benefits attached to the said post. The applicants, as stated in the OA, approached the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in the year in the year 2010 in W.P(C) No. 3140/2010 (R/1) filed by casual labourers including the present applicants was disposed of on 04.03.2010 directing to take a decision in terms of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra) and the decision taken thereon has also been intimated to the applicants therein. The applicants have no right for regularization, the Ld. Counsel for the respondents has also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, thereafter, they have filed this OA on 10.12.2019. The delay from 2010 when the Writ Petition was disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa till 2019 when this O.A. was filed has not been explained by the applicant nor have they filed any application as provided under rules/law seeking condonation of delay.
We have perused the decisions of this Bench relied on by the respondents in the cases filed by the similarly situated persons seeking direction to the respondents to direct the respondents to 15 O.A.260/00122 of 2020 regularize them by lifting the ban order imposed vide order dated 04.03.2004 and this Tribunal, after going through the provisions of rules, law and the facts of the matter, dismissed those cases on the ground of limitation. The relevant portion of one of the decision in OA No. 143/2022 is quoted herein below:
"10. Law on the subject of limitation is also no more res integra and suffice to place reliance on one such decision in the case of D.C.S. Negi -vs- UOI & Ors. [SLP (Civil) No. 7956/2011 CC No. 3709/2011). It is also profitable to place reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa dated 31.07.2023 in W.P.(C) No. 6268/2021 (UOI & Ors. Vs. Biswanath Kumar & Anr.) which according to us has fullest application to the case in hand. Relevant portion of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa is quoted herein below:
"24. A fine distinction is to be drawn in respect of 'acceptability' and 'unacceptability', as far as the condonation of delay is concerned. The reasons and its genuinity are important for condoning the delay. It became unnecessary that the Courts have to consider the precedents and condone the delay thereafter or reject the same. There are judgments for and against, but predominantly the facts, circumstances and the genuinity of the reasons of each case plays a pivotal role in considering the relief of condonation of delay. It is, therefore, trite to say that Judgments dealing with the condonation of delay may not lay down any standard or objective test but is purely an individualistic test. The Court is required to examine while adjudicating the matter relating to condonation of delay on exercising judicial discretion on individual facts involved therein. There does not exist any exhaustive list constituting sufficient cause. The applicant/petitioner is required to establish that in spite of acting with due care and caution, the delay had occurred due to circumstances 16 O.A.260/00122 of 2020 beyond his control and was inevitable. 25. In the present context, it is the judgment relied upon by the petitioners in Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (supra) is applicable, which relates to service matter, wherein the apex Court disapproved the entertainment of challenging the punishment order in a disciplinary proceeding after four years, as it suffers from delay and laches, by holding that the petitioner was careless to his duty and responsibilities and had been dismissed for unauthorized absence and, as such, delay in approaching Court in circumstances assumes more importance and without justification delay cannot be ignored. As such, the petition is liable to be dismissed for delay. The apex Court further held that the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ Court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. In paragraph-16 of the said judgment, the apex Court held as under:-
"16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court would be under legal obligation to scrutinize whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal lay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the Court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant - a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, "procrastination is the greatest thief of time" and second, law does not 17 O.A.260/00122 of 2020 permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis. In the case at hand, though there has been four years' delay in approaching the court, yet the writ court chose not to address the same. It is duty of the court to scrutinize whether such enormous delay is to be ignored without any justification. That apart, in the present case, such belated approach gains more significance as the respondent employee being absolutely careless to his duty and nurturing a lackadaisical attitude to the responsibility had remained unauthorizedly absent on the pretext of some kind of ill health. We repeat at the cost of repetition that remaining innocuously oblivious to such delay does not foster the cause of justice. On the contrary, it brings in injustice, for it is likely to affect others. Such delay may have unnecessarily drag others into litigation which in acceptable realm of probability, may have been treated to have attained finality. A court is not expected to give indulgence to such indolent persons- who compete with 'Kumbhakarna' or for that matter 'Rip Van Winkle'. In our considered opinion, such dealy does not deserve any indulgence and on the said ground alone the writ court should have thrown the petition overboard at the very threshold."
26. In view of the aforesaid judgment of the apex Court, it is made clear that the delay, which was caused in approaching the writ Court, should not be lightly interfered with by condoning the same. Therefore, the ratio decided by the apex Court in the aforementioned judgment is fully applicable to the present case and without taking into consideration the ratio decided in the said case in proper perspective, the Tribunal has committed gross error apparent on the face of record by condoning the delay of four years for entertaining the Original Application on merits in the name of grant of 18 O.A.260/00122 of 2020 substantial justice, cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
27. In view of the aforesaid facts and law, as discussed above, the inevitable conclusion arrived at by this Court is that the Tribunal was not justified in condoning the delay of four years in preferring the Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack to consider the imposition of punishment by the disciplinary authority, which was reduced by the appellate authority in appeal and confirmed by the revisional authority in revision. Thereby, the order so passed by the Tribunal on 18.01.2021 in M.A. No. 544 of 2020 (arising out of O.A. No. 289 of 2020) cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the same is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed. As a consequence of non-entertainment of the application for condonation of delay, i.e., M.A. No.544 of 2020, the O.A. No. 289 of 2020 also cannot be entertained by the Tribunal.
28. In the result, therefore, the writ petition stands allowed. However, under the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs."
11. In view of the discussions made above and settled position of law, this Tribunal does not find any ground to condone the delay. Hence the MA is dismissed and resultantly the OA stands dismissed".
15. Further, in the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board Vs. T.T.Murali Babu, 2014 (4) SCC 108, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows"
"Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of 19 O.A.260/00122 of 2020 the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the Court would be under legal obligation to scrutinize whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the Court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant - a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, "procrastination is the greatest thief of time" and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis. In the case at hand, though there has been four years' delay in approaching the court, yet the writ court chose not to address the same. It is the duty of the court to scrutinize whether such enormous delay is to be ignored without any justification. That apart, in the present case, such belated approach gains more significance as the respondent- employee being absolutely careless to his duty and nurturing a lackadaisical attitude to the responsibility had remained unauthorisedly absent on the pretext of some kind of ill health. We repeat at the cost of repetition that remaining innocuously oblivious to such delay does not foster the cause of justice. On the contrary, it brings in injustice, for it is likely to affect others. Such delay may have impact on others' ripened rights and may unnecessarily drag others into litigation which in acceptable realm of probability, may have been treated to have attained finality. A court is not expected to give indulgence to such indolent persons - who compete with 'Kumbhakarna' or for that matter 'Rip Van Winkle'. In our considered opinion, such delay does not deserve any indulgence and on the said ground alone the writ court should have thrown the petition overboard at the very threshold."
20 O.A.260/00122 of 2020
16. In the case of P.K. Ramachandran vs. State of Kerala & Anr., AIR 1998 SC 2276, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds.
17. In Brijesh Kumar vs. State of Haryana, 2014 (11) SCC 351, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that it is also a well settled principle of law that if some person has taken a relief approaching the Court just or immediately after the cause of action had arisen, other persons cannot take benefit thereof approaching the court at a belated stage for the reason that they cannot be permitted to take advantage of the order passed at the behest of some diligent person.
18. This Tribunal is also reminded by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Chand Sharma Etc Vs Udham Singh Kamal & Ors, AIR 1999 SC 3837, wherein Their Lordships taking into consideration the specific provision of the AT Act, 1985 and rules made thereunder on the point of limitation, were pleased to hold as under:
"7. On perusal of the materials on record and after hearing counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion 21 O.A.260/00122 of 2020 that the explanation sought to be given before us cannot be entertained as no foundation thereof was laid before the Tribunal. It was open to the first respondent to make proper application under Section 21(3) of the Act for condonation of delay and having not done so, he cannot be permitted to take up such contention at this late stage. In our opinion, the O.A. filed before the Tribunal after the expiry of three years could not have been admitted and disposed of on merits in view of the statutory provision contained in Section 21(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The law in this behalf is now settled, see Secretary to Government of India and Others v. Shivam Mahadu Gaik-wad, [1995] Supp. 3 SCC 231." (Emphasis added)
19. In view of the facts and law discussed above, especially, by applying the law laid down in the case of Ramesh Chandra Sharma (supra), this OA fails and is accordingly dismissed on the ground of delay, laches and limitation. No costs.
(PRAMOD KUMAR DAS) (SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
KB/PS