Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Raju vs Union Of India Through on 6 August, 2010
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench O.A. No. 2386/2010 M.A. No.1877/2010 New Delhi, this the 6th day of August, 2010 Honble Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) Honble Sh. Shailendra Pandey, Member (A) Raju, S/o late Shri Hari Singh, R/o H.No.H-1/235, Jahangirpuri, Delhi-110 033. Applicant By Advocate : Shri R.K. Shukla. Versus 1. Union of India through The Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. The Under Secretary (Admn.I) & Disciplinary Authority, Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Animal Husbandry & Dairying, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi; and 3. The Director (Admn.I), Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Animal Husbandry & Dairying, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi. Respondents O R D E R By Honble Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) :
Applicant has challenged order dated 14.11.2002 (page 21) whereby he was imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement, order dated 4/7.4.2003 (page 22) whereby his appeal was dismissed and has sought a direction to the respondents to reinstate him in service with full back wages.
2. O.A. has been filed on 02.06.2010. It is admittedly barred by limitation because period of limitation as prescribed under Section 21 of the A.T. Act, 1985 is one year from the date of cause of action, therefore, applicant has filed an application for condonation of delay.
3. The reasons given in the application for seeking condonation of delay are that applicant was having financial constraint, as no money was paid to him. He had lost the documents. He has got the documents under RTI on 26.03.2010. His wife was also sick.
4. We have heard counsel for the applicant and perused the application. The 1st ground taken is that he had financial constraint because no pension was paid to him. This condition is present even today because he has still not been paid any pensionary benefits. If he could file the O.A. now, why he didnt file the O.A. in time, has not been explained.
5. Applicant has next urged that the documents were lost but how they were lost has not been explained at all. He has also not shown what efforts were made by him to get the documents. He has asked for the documents in March, 2010 but period from 07.04.2003 to March, 2010 has not been explained. Merely because he got the documents pursuant to an application made under the RTI, it doesnt mean that earlier period is explained or it would extend the period of limitation. Applicant has next stated that his wife was sick but no document has been annexed to prove this averment. Mere bald statements cannot be relied upon specially when applicant is approaching the Court after over 7 years.
6. After all filing of application for condonation of delay is not a mere formality. On the contrary, onus is on the applicant to give justifiable reasons to convince the Court that the delay was not intentional but it was caused due to the circumstances beyond his control. We dont find the reasons given in the application are sufficient to condone the delay.
7. Therefore, application for condonation of delay is rejected. Since delay has not been condoned, the O.A. is also dismissed being barred by limitation. No costs.
(SHAILENDRA PANDEY) (MRS. MEERA CHHIBBER)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
Rakesh