Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Ananda Gopal Roy vs D/O India Post on 8 June, 2022
1 GA 5437/2018 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH, KOLKATA _ O.AIBS0/008 47/2018 MLAIa50/00290/2018 _ M.AIS50/NOZ9T/2018 Date of Order: 08+ 0b: Lord.
Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Bidisha Baneriee, Judicial Member Hon'ble Dr. (Ms.) Nandita Chatterjee, Administrative Member _ in the matter of:
1. Ananda Gopal Roy, aged about 45 years,
2. Nirupam Roy, aged about years, Both sons of Late Prabhat Kumar Roy, both are unemployed, residing at Chandipur, Post Office- Kukutla, Distriet- Birbhum, Police Station-Dubraipur, Pin-731123.
eeesansioets Applicants.
-Versus-
4. Union of India, service through the Secretary, Ministry of Communication and IT, Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg, New Dethi-
LLOOOL.
2. Chief Post Master General, West Bengal Circle Yogajog Bhavan, 56, CR.
Avenue, Kalkata-700012, lye 2 GA S47/2018
3. Superintendent of Pasts, Birbhum, Sun, District Birbhum, Pin-734.101, ane Respondents For The Applicant(s): Mr. J. R Das, Counsel For 'The Respondent(s) Ms. D. Nag, Counsel QRDER San Per: Hon'ble Dr. (Mis.} Nandita Chatterjee, Administrative Member eGR.
3The applicants have approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, to seek the following relief -
i) An arder directing the respondents to qashing ander setting aside the order of termination being No. £20 /S/69-70 doted OL.O8. 1969;
ii} Aq order directing the respondents to cancel withdraw or, rescind the purported communication being No. £2-d/8/ 70-74 dated 04.02.2992 issued by Superintendent of Post Office Sur, Birbhum, West Bengal' iff} An order directing the respondents te release then forthedth wth all consequential benefits including requiorization of the service period of their father tramting the same as.0n duty for all purposes and oll consequeatial monetary benefits to the applicants. including the Vi CPC benefits in conformity with the First Special Caurt, Birbhum, Suri dated 31.09.1991;
Ay An order directing the respondents to allow them the back wages us due fo the father of the eppllearits along with implementation of CPC as per rules as well as all conseguential monetary benefits to the applicant;
vi.dn arder directing she respondents to pay Hue interest a3 per rules to be poid te the applicants.
vi} An order directing the respondents to produce all relevant records with a-copy te the id. Advocate of the applicant.
wif Any ather erder oF further orderforders and/or direction/directions as to this Hon'ble Tribunal seem fit and proper."
Leo OA 5A7 (2018
2. Heard both Learned Counsel. Examined pleadings and documents on record. Written notes of arguments have been submitted by both Learned 'Counsel.
3. An M.A. bearing no. 350/00290/2018 has been filed praying for condonation of delay in filing the instant original application, A prayer has been made for joint prosecution under Rule 4{5}(a} of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 in VLA, bearing Wo. 350/00291/2018. This Tribunal would however, decide on the same only after orders are issued on their prayer for condonation of delay.
A, The applicants have primarily challenged the purported termination letter dated O41.08.1969 but have failed to bring forth any such communication terminating the services of their late father, one Prabhat Kumar Roy. The respondents, per contra, would categorically deny that, any such Prabhat Kumar. Roy, late father af the applicants, had ever worked as an Extra Departmental Branch Post Master of Perua-Gopalpur, Extra Departmental Branch, Post Office as per the office records.
The applicants would also challenge a purported communication dated 04.02.1992 issued by the office of respondent no. 3 (annexed at Annexure-A/2 to the OA), whose very existence is disputed by the respondent authorities.
The other prayers of the applicant are connected with regularization of the service perlod of their father based on his acquittal dated 31.05.1991 by the Loh.
a 4 OA 5477/2018 Learned Judge First Special Court, Birbhum, Suri in Special Court Case no. 5 of 1987 along with consequent benefits.
5. The respondents, both in their reply to the MA as well as in written notes of arguments, have strongly contested the maintainability of the instant original application as being hopelessly barred by Imitation. The respondents would argue as follows :-
{i} That, vide no. F/Adv. Notice/P. Gopalpur dated 16.04.2018, it transpires that no records are available to establish as to whether Prabhat Kumar Roy had ever worked as an Extra Departmental Branch Post Master of. Perua Gopalpur branch Post Office. Nor are any judgments/ orders as referred ta in the original application available in the records of the branch Post Office. fii} That, even the sentority lst maintained for extra departmental staff does not disclose the name of Prabhat Kumar Roy in such list. {ii} Thas, the concerned respondent thoroughly examined the 7(seven) part . register maintained at his office for the purpose of indexing the fraud cases that had occurred under such postal division. But no entry bearing no. F2- 1/4/69-70 dated 01.08.1969 was found therein despite such reference contained in the legal notice issued on behalf of the applicants. {iv} That, the Postmaster Suri Head Office alsa issued a letter on the same day regarding supply of service particulars of said Prabhat Kumar Roy, ex-EDBPM, Perua Gopalpur, B.O. as per the advocate's notice but the Postmaster of Suri H.O. in his Jetter No. B/Report/Service/P.Kr.Roy at Suri dated 17.04.2018 stated that no service particulars regarding the above named individual was available with his office.5 OA 5547/2018
- again, in response to a letter dated 19.04.2018, followed by 'eminders dated 09.05.2018 & 15.05.2018 issued to the ASPOs, Suri Sub Division (the controlling Sub Divisional Head of Perua Gopalpur Branch Post Office) for collecting information/documents/ judgment/order iF any in connection with the said court case no. 5/87, the addressee official replied on 45.05.2018, that ao information was available in the establishment file of Perua Gopalpur 8.0. regarding the said Prabhat Kumar Roy.
{vi} That, no documents are available before the respondent authority on and from 01.08.1969 as allegedly claimed by the applicants. | (vil) That, the respondents would contend that the Miscellaneous Application as well as the instant original application refer to false and fabricated documents, and, {5, therefore, Hable to be dismissed with costs.
(vii) That, if the delinquent employee was purportedly acquitted on 34.05.1991 as allegedly claimed by the applicants, and, if he had expired on 06.06.2006, there is no recorded justification as to why the sald delinquent ex-
employee had never approached the authorities or any judicial forum during the intervening 15 years after his acquittal, to claim his dues.
(ix) That, if delinquent employee was purportedly terminated on 01.08.1969, ag disclosed to him on 04.02.1992, and, as clalmed by the applicants, the delinquent employee had neither challenged the termination _ had prayed:
for his reinstatement during his lifetime. |
(x) That, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in its various judgments, has also been pleased to observe that a Court or Tribunal, before directing the consideration of 4 claim or representation, should examine whether the claim. or representation is with reference to a 'tive' issue or whether it is with reference 8 OA 887 /2018 "io a 'dead' or 'stale' issue or dispute. In the case of 'stale' or 'dead' disputes, the Court/Teibunal should put an end to matter and should not direct cansideration or reconsideration of such stil born Issues, {xi} That, the instant miscellaneous application for condonation of delay is not maintainable as the application does not specify the number of days of delay -
that are sought to be condoned by this Tribunal.
By way of explanation for the delay, the applicants would submit as follows -
(i) That, the purported termination letter dated 01.08.1969 had never been communicated to their late father Prabhat Kumar Roy.
(i) That, a criminal case being Special Court Case No. 5 of 4987 lodged against him before the Learned Judge, First Special Court, Birbhum, Suri, has duly exonerated the late father of the applicants from the aforesaid criminal case on 31.05.1991, {iii} That, despite his acquittal in the criminal case, the said Prabhat Kumar Roy was not allowed to be reinstated in service.
Civ} That, the said Prabhat Kurnar Roy had requested the respondents to allow him ta rejoin his service on the strength of Ais orders of acquittal in the said Court case.
i} that, an 04.02.1992, the applicant was informed that his services were terminated vide a letter dated 01.08.1969.
ivi} That as such termination was nat a result of any departmental proceedings, the termination cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
(vii) That, the said Prabhat Kumar Roy expired an 06,06, 2006, and, thereafter, his sons, namely the applicants, prayed to the respondent authorities for reinstatement of the deceased employee and payment of consequent i BA 547/2018 respondents on 34,01.2018, the authorities failed to respond to the same.
(vill) That, the applicants had ta devote much resources as well as time in reaching their Learned Counsel from their remote village.
{ix} That, on 05.10.1996, an accidental fire in their residence had destroyed :
the relevant documents.
{x} That, their prayer for monetary benefits is to be interpreted as a continuous cause of action.
ED» The applicant would hence pray this Tribunal be pleased to condone such > delay to protect them from severe prejudice that cannot be compensated.
7. This Tribunal would infer the following from the applicants' explanations :
{i} That, the primary order under challenge, namely, the purported termination order dated O4.08.1965, has reportedly, never heen received by the applicants' late father, or is in the possession of the applicants, and, that, the applicant would primarily rely on a purperted communication dated 04.02.1992 {annexed at Annexure-A/2 to the OA) to bring forth the facts of the | termination, (it) That, the respondents would completely deny the existence of any Prabhat | Kumar Roy as their Extra Departmental Branch Post Master-of Perua-Gopalpur, Extra Departmental Branch, Post Office, and, that, despite their past attempts, no orders of the Learned Judge First Special Court, Birbhum, Suri could be obtained through the Learned Public Prosecutor, Birbhum District.
{ii} That, although the applicant would aver that, upon acquittal, the said Prabhat Kumar Roy had prayed to the authorities on 12.12.1991, no such prayer of Prabhat Kumar Roy has been brought on record. .
§ OA 547/20184 fiv) That, reportedly on account of an accidental fire an 05.10.1896, all the relevant documents relating to said Prabhat Kumar Roy had been damaged.
(v) That, although Prabhat Kumar Roy had expired on 06,06,2006, there is nothing on record to establish that, between 1991 to 2006, any farther attempts have been made by the said Prabhat Kumar Roy to join his services.
(vi) That, the applicants, who are the sons of Prabhat Kurnar Roy, had appealed after 12 years of the expiry of their father, through their Learned Advocate on 24.01.2018 (annexed at Annexure-A/6 to the OA), but, that, the respondent authorities failed to respond favourably, upon which, and, being aggrieved, they have approached this Tribu nal, &. What remains undisputed in this matter Is that, that as the primary cause of action is a purported termination 'of services of Prabhat Kumar Roy on 01.08.1969, and, that, the instant original application has been filed an 19.04.2018, there is an approximate delay of 50 years in preferring this original application. The respondents had questioned the maintainability of such original -- application as it refers toa "dead" or "stale" issue and, that, the respondents are severely handicapped as they have not been able to obtain any records to prove the existence of the said Prabhat Kumar Roy as their Extra Departmental Branch Past Master of Perua-Gopalpur, Extra Departmental Branch, Post Office , and the orders of the Learned Court of Additional District and Sessions/ Learned Judge First Special Court, Birbhum, Suri was never made available to the respondents, despite thelr continuous coordination with the Learned Public Prosecutor, Birbhum. fy a 3 DA S47 /2018 #27 Limitation ~ {1} A Tribunal shell not admit an application,~ fqjin a case where a final arder such as is mentioned ih lause fo) of suib-section (2) of Section 20 has been made in connection with the grievance umless the application is made, within one year front the date on which suck final order has been made;
oe ib) In a case where an appeal or representation such as nientioned in clause {b) of sub-section (2) of section 20 has been made and a periad of six months had expired thereafter without such final order having been made, within one year from the date of expiry of the said period of six months, .
Peewee ee Further, sub Section 3 of Section 27 of ihe said Act, provides as wrider~
3) Notuithsianding anything contained in sub-section {1} or subsection (2), an application may be admitted after the period of one year apecified in clause fa) or clause (b) of sub- sexion {1} or, as the case may be, the period of six monihs specified in sub-section (2), if tke applicant satisfies the Tribunal Swit he had sufficient cause for net making the application within such period."
in D.C.S. Negi v. Union of india and others, (2019) 1 Supreme Court Cases {L&5} 321, the Hon'ble court held as follows:
* . We consider i necessary fe nofe that for quile seme ume, the Administratine THbunals established under the Act have been entertaining and deciding the applicatians filed. under Section 19 of the Act in complete cisregard to the mandate of Section 21, which reads as under-
"24. Limitation. {7} 4 Tribunal shall not admit an application ~ fa) in @ case where a fine! order such us is mentioned in clause {uj of sub-
section (2) af Section 20 has been made in connection with the grievance unless the application ts made, within one year from the date on which such final order has been mace;
(o} In a ease where an appeal or representation such as is mentioned it clause f(b) of sub-section (2) of Section 2G has been mace und a period of six months had expired thereafier without such final order having been. made, within one year from the date nf expiry of the said period of six rrontis, (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where ~ hh re pal tg 5 PD) fargo 33 einen"
10 DA SAT PANS ia) The grievance in respect of whick an application is made had arisen by reason of any order made at any time during the period of three years immediately preceding the date on which the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Trbunal becomes exercisable. under this Act in respect of the matter to which such. order relates; and ib) No proceedings for the redressal of such grievunce had been.
commenced before the said date before any High Cot, Pax) The application shall be entertained by the Tribunal if il is nuide withia the period referred to in clause fa}, of as the case may be, clause {b) of sub-section {2} or within a period of six months from the said date, whichever period expires laier.
(3) Notudthstanding anything contained in sub-section {2) or sub- section (2), an anplication may be admitted after the period of one year specified in clause {a} er clause {b} of sub-section (1) of as the case muy be, the period of six months specified i. sub-section (3), Uf the applicant satisfies the Tribunal that he had sufficient cause for not making the application teithin such periad."
IGA reading of the plain luonguage of the abeve reproduced section makes t clear that the Tribunal cannot admit an application uniess the same is made within the time specified in. clauses fa} and {b) of Section 21 (1) or Section 21 (2) or an order is passed in terms of sub-section {3} for entertaining the application after the prescribed period. Since Section 21/1) ig couched in negative form, itis the duty of the Trbunat io first consider whether the application is within limitation, An application can. be admitted anly yf the same is found io nave been made within the prescribed period or sufficient cause is shawn for not doing so within, the prescribed period and un order is passed under Section 223} Id.in the present case, the Tribunal entertained and decided the apnlication without even adverting to the issue of leretation, Tre learned counsel for the petitioner tried to explain this omission by painting out that in the reply led on behalf ofthe respondents, no such objection was raised but we have not fell impressed, In our view, the Tribunal cannot abdicate its duty to act In accordance uNth the statute wider which it is established and the fact that an objection of limitation. is not raised by the respondenis § non-applicunt is not atadl relevant."
In our considered view, no satisfactory and cogent explanation have been offered on the delay in filing of the application. The same, therefore, does not merit consideration. The maxim of "vigilantibus, non dermientibus, jura sub- veniant" (law assists those who are vigilant and not those sleeping over their rights) is applicable in this case.
Weare also of the opinion that this is not a fit case for condonation of delay of 50 years, and, that such delay could not be explained suitably by the applicant except to refer to paucity of time, resource crunch and an accidental LL OA 547/2018 "fire, which had admittedly occurred during the lifetime of the purported ex- employee. Hence, this O.A. as hopelessly barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985.
10. Accordingly, M.A. No. 00290 of 2018 containing the applicant's prayer for condonation of delay stands rejected and, consequently, the Instant O.A. along with MA No, 00291 of 2018 praying for joint prosecution under Rule 4(5){a) are dismissed on the ground of delay. There will be no orders as to casts.
* sete wal TIN . ai Pg | 2 ay (Dr, Nandita Chatterjee} {Bidisha Banerjee) Administrative Member judicial Member al