Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
B Gouda vs Bharat Sanchal Nigam Limited on 6 November, 2024
1 O.A.No. 260/00150 of 2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
O.A.No. 260/00150 of 2017
Reserved on 22.10.2024 Pronounced on 06.11.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE SHRI SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J)
THE HON'BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A)
1) Budheswar Gouda, aged about 32 years, S/o:-
Dinabandhu Gouda, at present working as a
Casual Mazdoor under the Sub-Divisional
Officer, Telegraph, Mohana Exchange,
Digapahandi, Resident of At / P.O.:- Mohana,
Dist:- Gajapati.
2) Purna Chandra Sahu, aged about 33 years, S/o:-
Bhaskara Sahu, at present working as Casual
Mazdoor under the Sub-Divisional Officer,
Telegraph, Dengaosta Exchange Digapahandi,
Resident of Dengaosta, P.O.:- Singapur, Dist:-
Ganjam.
3) D. Pabitra Mohan Dora, aged about 42 years,
S/o:- Late D. Lingaraj Dora, at present working
as Casual Mazdoor under the Sub-Divisional,
Officer, Telegraph, Bhismagiri Exchange,
Digapahandi, Resident of P.O.:- Kansamari,
Dist:- Ganjam. Dharmapur,
4) Sankarsant Nayak, aged about 35 years, S/o:-
Trinath Nayak, at present working as Casual
Mazdoor under the Sub-Divisional, Officer,
Telegraph, Digapahandi, Resident Adava
Exchange, of P.O.:- Chandiput, Dist:- Gajapati.
Manikapur,
5) Santosh Kumar Bisoi, aged about 38 years,
S/o:- Kasinath Bisoi, at present working as
2 O.A.No. 260/00150 of 2017
Casual Mazdoor under the Sub-Divisional,
Officer, Telegraph, Sidheswar Exchange,
Digapahandi, Resident of P.O.:- Sidheswar, Dist:
Ganjam. Sidhakhandi,
6) Aswini Kumar Bisoi, aged about 36 years, S/o:-
Narasingha Bisoi, at present working as Casual
Mazdoor under the Officer, Telegraph, Sub-
Divisional Balipada Exchange, Digapahandi,
Resident of At / P.O. - Balipada, Dist:- Ganjam.
7) Raj Kishore Das, aged about 45 years, S/o:-
Gobinda Das, at present working as Casual
Mazdoor under the Sub-Divisional Officer,
Telegraph, Digapahandi Exchange.
Digapahandi, Resident of At / P.O.:-
Digapahandi, Dist:- Ganjam.
8) Pradeep Kumar Gouda, aged about 49 years,
S/o:- Narasingha Gouda, at present working as
Casual Mazdoor under the Sub-Divisional
Officer, Telegraph, Digapahandi Exchange,
Digapahandi, Resident of At / P.O.:-
Digapahandi, Dist:- Ganjam.
9) Alu Dandasi, aged about 41 years, S/o:- Alu
Trinath, at present working as Casual Mazdoor
under the Sub-Divisional Officer, Telegraph,
Digapahandi Exchange, Digapahandi, Resident
of At/P.O.:- Digapahandi, Dist:- Ganjam.
10) Simachala Gouda @Ranahati, aged about 37
years, S/o:- Raghunath Gouda, at present
working as Casual Mazdoor under the Sub-
Divisional Officer, Telegraph, Nuapada
Exchange, Digapahandi, Resident of At / P.O.:-
Digapahandi, Dist:- Ganjam.
......Applicants
VERSUS
1) Union of India, represented though the
Secretary, Ministry of Tele Communication,
3 O.A.No. 260/00150 of 2017
Govt. of India, Sanchar Bhawan-20, Ashoka-
Road, New Delhi-110001.
2) Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Bharat
Sanchar Nigam Limited Corporate Office Bharat
Sanchar Bhavan, Harish Chandra Mathur Lane,
Janpath, New Delhi-110 001.
3) Chief General Manager, Telecom, Bharat
Sanchar Nigam Limited. Ashok Nagar, Near
PMG Square, Bhubaneswar-751 001, Dist:-
Khordha
4) General Manager, Telecom District, Berhampur
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, At/P.O.:-
Berhampur, Dist:- Ganjam-760 001.
5) Sub-Divisional Officer, BSNL, Digapahandi,
Digapahandi Sub-Division, At/P.O.:-
Digapahandi, Dist:- Ganjam.
......Respondents
For the applicant : Mr. K.K.Jena, Counsel
For the respondents: Mr. S. Behera, Counsel for DoT
Mr. K.C.Kanungo, Counsel for BSNL
O R D E R
PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):
Ten applicants have filed this OA on 16.02.2017 praying inter alia to direct the respondents to absorb them in the post of Group-D (non-test category) of regular mazdoor as left out cases w.e.f. the date on which the 17 numbers of Casual mazdoors were regularized within a stipulated time. 4 O.A.No. 260/00150 of 2017
2. According to Ld. Counsel for the applicants, the applicant Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 10 have been working as casual mazdoors uninterruptedly since 2000 and applicant Nos. 4, 7, 8 and 9 since 1997 under GMTD, Berhampur/Resp. No.4. The Divisional Engineer vide letter dated 15.10.2003 directed the SDO, BSNL, Digapahandi/Resp. No.5 to send the names/list of causal mazdoors working under Digapahandi Sub Division for consideration of their regularization in BSNL. In turn, respondent No.5 in letter dated 03.11.2003 sent the names of the mazdoors working under him. Thereafter, the Sub Divisional officer, Telegraph, Digapahandi in letter dated 29.01.2005 forwarded names and documents of the casual mazdoors, including the names of the applicants. Further, in letter dated 24.02.2005, the SDO, Telegraph, Digapahandi sent the required information relating to casual mazdoors under him. It is submitted that 17 casual mazdoors were regularized but their cases were left out, for which they submitted representation on 21.07.2009. Since no action was taken on their representation, they had again submitted representation on 03.05.2012 mentioning therein that in the year 2009, the 5 O.A.No. 260/00150 of 2017 Divisional Engineer, Optical Fiver Cable, Behrampur in compliance of the interim order dated 08.05.2009 of the Hon'ble Apex Court conferred temporary status on 8 number of workmen with grant of usual scale of pay of Group-D posts. It is also submitted that memo dated 23.06.2004 would evident that 17 number of causal mazdoors were appointed in Group-D post (non-test category of regular mazdoor) w.e.f. 01.10.2000 ignoring the cases of the applicants although they were senior to them. According to the applicants, submission of representations by the individual and through union did not yield any result, they approached the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in W.P(C) No. 20770/2016, which was disposed of as withdrawn with leave to approach this Tribunal. 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. Hence, Ld. Counsel for the applicants has prayed for the relief claimed in this OA.
6 O.A.No. 260/00150 of 2017
3. Respondents filed their counter contesting/objecting the very maintainability of this OA being hit by the delay, laches/limitation as also on merit.
4. 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 1999 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 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 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 7 O.A.No. 260/00150 of 2017 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 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 Digapahandi since 8 O.A.No. 260/00150 of 2017 2005. 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.
5. 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, Berhampur Telecom District forwarded a list of casual/contractual labourers for scrutiny and consideration by the circle office, Bhubaneswar. A list of 1437 casual labourers was prepared by the circle office categorywise as A, B, C and N. 455 casual labourers, whose documents were available, were put in category-A. the names of casual labourers, whose supportive documents were not available were put in category-N. Applicants at Sl. No. 1, 4, 7, 8 and 10 were placed at Sl. No. 667, 669, 662, 666 and 671 under category-N whereas the names of the other applicants were not in the list at all. 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 9 O.A.No. 260/00150 of 2017 decision in the case 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. The appointment of 17 casual labourers was done by CGM Microwave Project Circle, Kolkata, which is a completed 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. 1747/2009 filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa was disposed of on 27.11.2009 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 10 O.A.No. 260/00150 of 2017 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;
(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;
11 O.A.No. 260/00150 of 2017
(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;
6. 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);
12 O.A.No. 260/00150 of 2017
(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);
(viii) Order dated 15.07.2024 in MA 408/2022 arising out of OA No. 147/2022 ( Padma Charan Dalabehera Vs. BSNL);
Accordingly, the respondents have submitted that this OA is liable to be dismissed both on the ground of limitation so also on merit.
7. 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 13 O.A.No. 260/00150 of 2017 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:
(a) Amarkant Rai Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2835 of 2015 arising out of SLP No. 20169 of 2013;
(b) Raman Kumar & Ors Vs. UOI & Ors, 2023 Live law (S.C.) 520;
(c) Ravi Verma & Ors Vs. UOI, Civil Appeal No. 2795-2796 of 2018 dated 13.03.2018;
(d) Rajendra Kumar Nayak Vs. Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd & Ors, 2018 (1) OLR-205;
(e) Anu Charan Patra Vs. Orissa State Agriculture and Marketing Board and others, 2019(1) OLR-497;
(f) Basanta Kumar Barik Vs. State of Odisha & Ors, W.P.(C) (O.A.) No. 616 of 2017 dated 26.11.2021;
8. 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, Berhampur and, therefore, the grounds of the respondents that this OA is hit by the law of limitation is not tenable.
9. Since the respondents/Ld. Counsel for the respondents raised and opposed the very maintainability of this OA on the 14 O.A.No. 260/00150 of 2017 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.
10. 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 on which the 17 numbers of causal mazdoors have been regularized and absorbed in the said posts. The 17 casual labourers were appointed provisionally and thereafter on regular basis vide order dated 14.02.2001 and 23.06.2004 by the CGM (ETP) Microwave Project Circle, Kolkata, which has not been disputed by the applicants. The applicants, as stated in the OA, approached the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in the year 2016 in W.P.(C) No. 20770, which was disposed of as withdrawn on 20.01.2017. thereafter, they have filed this OA on 16.02.2017. The delay from 14.02.2001/23.06.2004 till filing of the Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in 2016 has not been explained by the applicant nor have they filed any application 15 O.A.No. 260/00150 of 2017 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 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 16 O.A.No. 260/00150 of 2017 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 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 17 O.A.No. 260/00150 of 2017 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 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 18 O.A.No. 260/00150 of 2017 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 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.
19 O.A.No. 260/00150 of 2017
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".
11. 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 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 20 O.A.No. 260/00150 of 2017 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."
12. 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.
13. 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 21 O.A.No. 260/00150 of 2017 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.
14. 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 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) 22 O.A.No. 260/00150 of 2017
15. 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 (Admn.) Member (Judl.) RK/PS