Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
S Mohan Kumar vs South Western Railway on 24 September, 2025
1 MA 601/2024 in
OA 595/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.601/2024
IN
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00595/2024
ORDER RESERVED : 08.09.2025
DATE OF ORDER : 24.09.2025
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHRI SHRIVASTAVA ...MEMBER(J)
HON'BLE MR.SANTOSH MEHRA ...MEMBER(A)
Shri S.Mohan Kumar,
S/o K.V.Srinivasan,
Aged 68 years,
Retired Senior Personnel Officer
on 30th June, 2015,
from the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer,
Construction,
South Western Railway,
Bangalore Cantonment,
Bangalore -560046.
Residing at the House No.29,
1st Main 2nd A Cross Road,
Michael Palya,
Indiranagar,
Bangalore -560075. ...Applicant
(Party in person)
Vs.
S S SARALADEVI
SARALADE CAT BANGALORE
2025.09.24
VI 14:16:41+05'30'
2 MA 601/2024 in
OA 595/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
1. The Union of India,
Represented by its Secretary,
Ministry of Railways,
Railway Board,
New Delhi -110001.
2. The General Manager,
South Western Railway,
Head quarters Office,
Gadag Road, Hubli-580020.
3. The Chief Personnel Officer,
Zonal Headquarters Office,
South Western Railway,
Hubli-580020.
4. The Chief Administrative Officer,
South Western Railway,
Construction Office,
Bangalore Cantonment,
Bangalore-560046.
5. The Financial Advisor
and the Chief Accounts Officer,
Office of the Chief Administrative Officer,
South Western Railway,
Construction Office,
Bangalore Cantonment,
Bangalore-560046. ...Respondents
(By Advocate, Shri N.Amaresh)
S S SARALADEVI
SARALADE CAT BANGALORE
2025.09.24
VI 14:16:41+05'30'
3 MA 601/2024 in
OA 595/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
ORDER
Per: Hon'ble Shri Santosh Mehra ...........Member(A)
Through this OA , the applicant has sought for the following reliefs:
"(a) to direct the respondents to consider the case of the applicant to refund the amount Rs.52,148/- (Rupees Fifty Two Thousand One Hundred and Forty Eight only) recovered from DCRG without any authority of law.
(b) to direct the respondents to pay, as is necessary as the recovery was made without any authority in law and without any show cause notice and has not been refunded despite repeated representations, a simple interest 12% on Rs.52,148/- (Rupees Fifty Two Thousand One Hundred and Forty Eight only) from the date of the retirement of the applicant from service on superannuation on the afternoon of 30th June, 2015.
(c) to direct the respondents to pay the amount of rs.52,148/-
(Rupees Fifty Two Thousand One Hundred and Forty Eight only) as recovered from the DCRG and also the simple interest there on from 01.07.2015 within a month's time, with Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only).
(d) to direct the respondents to ensure an intimation is given to the applicant on the prompt payment of both the amount of Rs.52,148/- (Rupees Fifty Two Thousand One Hundred and Forty S S SARALADEVI SARALADE CAT BANGALORE 2025.09.24 VI 14:16:41+05'30' 4 MA 601/2024 in OA 595/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH Eight only) as recovered from the DCRG and also the simple interest there on from 01.07.2015 once it is arranged."
2. The applicant,(Party in Person) joined the Railway Services on 11.04.1980 and retired on superannuation on 30.06.2015 as Senior Personnel Officer, South Western Railway, Bangalore after rendering over 35 years of service. The applicant avers that a case was foisted against him by his superiors as a vengeful act, against his repeated representations for denial of promotion to him and for making several applications under RTI Act, 2005. A Charge Memo was served upon him on 20.09.2012 and an inquiry was conducted against him. The applicant states that due to his several applications under the RTI Act, a penalty was imposed by the Chief Information Commissioner on the respondents, including on top officials of the Railway Board and General Managers of the Railways etc. He also gave several representations against wrong entries in his ACRs. Hence, an order of penalty of reduction by one stage in time scale till retirement with cumulative effect, was imposed upon him, which has also affected his retirement benefits. This order was issued on 15.05.2015 (Annexure A1).
S S SARALADEVI
SARALADE CAT BANGALORE
2025.09.24
VI 14:16:41+05'30'
5 MA 601/2024 in
OA 595/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
3. The applicant further submits that subsequently another order was issued against him for recovery of Rs.52,148/- as penalty, with respect to the same Charge Memo for which penalty had already been imposed upon him earlier. This order is issued on 19.06.2015 and marked as Annexure A2. ( page 21). Against this order of recovery of ₹52,148/-, the applicant submitted a representation on 07.07.2021 (Annexure A3) for the refund of the entire amount. The applicant says that the above Order of recovery was passed by an Incompetent Authority and without giving him any Show Cause Notice and hence, it was unlawful. The applicant submits that he received a reply in this regard on 19.10.2021 from the Dy.CPO/Gaz, stating that the amount of Rs.52,148/-, which was recovered from his DCRG cannot be refunded. The applicant submits that over the next few years, he has made several reminder representations to the respondents, requesting for the refund of Rs.52,148/- and simple interest thereon from 01.07.2015 till the date of refund , but he has not heard anything from them despite lapse of several years. Hence, this OA.
S S SARALADEVI
SARALADE CAT BANGALORE
2025.09.24
VI 14:16:41+05'30'
6 MA 601/2024 in
OA 595/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
4. The applicant has also filed a Miscellaneous Application No.601/2024 under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 for condonation of delay. In his application for condonation of delay, he has essentially reiterated the above mentioned facts. He has prayed for condonation of delay from 19.10.2021 to 28.10.2024 i.e., delay of 1107 days. He has justified the delay on the grounds that all these years, he was waiting for an appropriate and just response from the respondents which he did not get despite sending them several reminders. Hence, the delay should be condoned.
5. The respondents have filed their reply statement. According to the Counsel for the respondents, the applicant has committed grave misconduct by repeatedly misusing the Duty Pass facility, despite being a Gazetted Officer. Hence, Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and based on the same, Penalty of Reduction by one stage in time scale till retirement with cumulative effect was imposed upon him.
S S SARALADEVI
SARALADE CAT BANGALORE
2025.09.24
VI 14:16:41+05'30'
7 MA 601/2024 in
OA 595/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
6. The Counsel for respondents has stated that Charge Sheet for Major Penalty was issued against the applicant dated 20.09.2012 (Annexure R1), which is detailed as follows:
"ARTICLE: I - He has misused his Bronze Metal Pass No.131 for his personal journeys and made reservations on 55 occasions as listed in annexure "A" which is in violation of SCHEDULE-I, Rule No.5 of Pass Rules 1986.
ARTICLE: II - On 14 occasions he has not cancelled his reservations made in particular trains though he has not performed journey as listed in Annexure "B". Thus, he blocked the accommodation and violated (1) Para 638 of Indian Railway Commercial Manual Vol 1 1992 Edition and (2) Para No. (iv) of Board letter No. 94/TG-1/20/P/14 dated 19.01.2010 (commercial circular No. 3 of 2010).
ARTICLE: III - He has made reservations/travelled on the strength of Bronze Metal pass No. 131 out of South Western Railway jurisdiction though he is not eligible to travel on the strength of Bronze MT Pass No 131 on 5 occasions listed in Annexure "C". Thus, he has violated PASS RULES, 1986-Duty pass rules, schedule-1 (Rule No. 5, Para No. I(e)).
S S SARALADEVI
SARALADE CAT BANGALORE
2025.09.24
VI 14:16:41+05'30'
8 MA 601/2024 in
OA 595/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
ARTICLE: IV - He has made reservations on the strength of his bronze metal pass by two different trains to same destination on the same day as mentioned under:
S.No. Train MT Date PNR No. Class From To No. No. 01 16589 131 30.01.2011 422- 2AC SBC UBL 5709955 02 17313 131 30.01.2011 412- 2AC YPR UBL 5744461 Thus, he blocked the accommodation and violated Para No.(vii) of Board letter No.94/TG-I/20/P/14 dated 19.01.2010 (commercial circular No.3 of 2010).
ARTICLE: V - He has carried some other person by reserving as his son on the strength of his Bronze metal pass No.131 in one occasion mentioned as under:
S. Date MT Train PNR No. From To CL Name
No. No. No.
01 11.07.2008 131 16517 426- YPR MAQ 2A Sriram
4730084
02 13.07.2008 131 16518 451- MAQ YPR 2A Sriram
1549667
ARTICLE: VI - He has made reservation in I AC on the strength of his Bronze Metal Pass No.131 as mentioned below. Thus, he has violated PASS RULES, 1986 - Duty pass rules, Schedule-I (Rule No.1, Para No.1(c).
The details are as under:
S S SARALADEVI
SARALADE CAT BANGALORE
2025.09.24
VI 14:16:41+05'30'
9 MA 601/2024 in
OA 595/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
S. Train PNR No. MT No. Date From To Class
No. No.
01 16590 410- 131 22.03.2009 SBC UBL 1AC
5885033
02 16589 832- 131 23.03.2009 UBL SBC 1AC
9619779
Thus, the said Sri. S. Mohan Kumar, SPO/Mechanical/HQ/UBL has failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Railway Servant violating Rule No. 3(1) (i), (ii) and (iii) of Railway Services (conduct) Rules, 1966, violated PASS RULES, 1986-Duty pass rules, schedule-1 (Rule No. 5, Para No. 1 (e) & (c) and Commercial circular No.3 of 2010 (Board letter No. 94/TG-1/20/P/14 dated 19.01.2010. Corrections slip No.21 to the Indian Railways Commercial Manual Vol-1."
7. The Counsel for respondent avers that all the charges were proved against the applicant except Article-V, in the disciplinary inquiry, which was conducted as per the laid down procedure. Based on the findings and recommendation of the Inquiry Authority, the Disciplinary Authority has rightly imposed a penalty of reduction by one stage in time scale of pay till retirement with cumulative effect and this punishment will also affect his retirement benefits as per order dated 15.5.2015 vide Annexure A1.
S S SARALADEVI
SARALADE CAT BANGALORE
2025.09.24
VI 14:16:41+05'30'
10 MA 601/2024 in
OA 595/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
8. Defending the recovery of Rs.52,148/-, the Counsel for respondents submits that the applicant had performed 55 journeys without approval, out of which, in four journeys, he was also accompanied by his family members. The learned Counsel explains that the representations of the applicant dated 25.06.2015, 07.07.2021 and 30.08.2023 against recovery of Rs.52,148/- was replied to comprehensively and convincingly explained by the respondents vide their letter dated 19.10.2021 (Anenxure R3). He says that the recovery is fully justified. In this regard, he has invited our attention to the judgement of the Supreme Court in in State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, which states as follows:
"10. ....................... An action of the State, ordering a recovery from an employee, would be in order, so long as it is not rendered iniquitous to the extent, that the action of recovery would be more unfair, more wrongful, more improper, and more unwarranted, than the corresponding right of the employer, to recover the amount. Or in other words, till such time as the recovery would have a harsh and arbitrary effect on the employee, it would be permissible in law. ..........................."
S S SARALADEVI
SARALADE CAT BANGALORE
2025.09.24
VI 14:16:41+05'30'
11 MA 601/2024 in
OA 595/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
9. The Counsel for respondents has also stated that this recovery was strictly in consonance with orders of the DOPT vide OM F.No.18/26/2011-Estt (Pay-I) dated 06.02.2014 and OM F.No.18/03/2015-Estt (Pay-I) dated 02.03.2016 (Annexure R5 and R6 respectively). The relevant portions of Annexure A5 are cited as below:
"F. No. 18/26/ 2011-Estt (Pay-I) Government of India Ministry of Personnel, PG and Pension Department of Personnel and Training North Block, New Delhi, Dated the 6th February, 2014 QFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject: Recovery of wrongful/excess payment made to Government servant.
The undersigned is directed to say that the issue of recovery of wrongful/excess payments made to Government servants has been examined in consultation with the Department of Expenditure and the Department of Legal Affairs in the light of the recent judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chandi Prasad Uniyal And Ors vs State Of Uttarakhand And Ors, 2012 AIR SCW 4742, (2012) 8 SCC 417, decided on 17th August, 2012. The Hon'ble Court has observed as under: .....................
16. We are concerned with the excess payment of public money which is often described as "tax payers money" which belongs neither to the officers who have effected over-payment nor that S S SARALADEVI SARALADE CAT BANGALORE 2025.09.24 VI 14:16:41+05'30' 12 MA 601/2024 in OA 595/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH of the recipients. We fail to see why the concept of fraud or misrepresentation is being brought in such situations. Question to be asked is whether excess money has been paid or not may be due to a bona fide mistake. Possibly, effecting excess payment of public money by Government officers may be due to various reasons like negligence, carelessness, collusion, favouritism etc. because money in such situation does not belong to the payer or the payee. Situations may also arise where both the payer and the payee are at fault, then the mistake is mutual. Payments are being effected in many situations without any authority of law and payments have been received by the recipients also without any authority of law. Any amount paid/received without authority of law can always be recovered barring few exceptions of extreme hardships but not as a matter of right, in such situations law implies an obligation on the payee to repay the money, otherwise it would amount to unjust enrichment.
2. .............................
3. In view of the law declared by Courts and recently reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above cited case, Chandi Prasad Uniyal And Ors vs State Of Uttarakhand And Ors, 2012 AIR SCW 4742, (2012) 8 SCC 417, the Ministries/Departments are advised to deal with the issue of wrongful/excess payments as follows: .............................................................
S S SARALADEVI
SARALADE CAT BANGALORE
2025.09.24
VI 14:16:41+05'30'
13 MA 601/2024 in
OA 595/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
iii. Whenever any excess payment has been made on
account of fraud, misrepresentation, collusion, favouritism, negligence or, carelessness, etc., roles of those responsible for overpayments in such cases, and the employees who benefitted from such actions should be identified, and departmental/criminal action should be considered in appropriate cases.
iv. Recovery should be made in all cases of overpayment barring few exceptions of extreme hardships. No waiver of recovery may be allowed without the approval of Department of Expenditure.
v. While ordering recovery, all the circumstances of the case should be taken into account. In appropriate cases, the concerned employee may be allowed to refund the money in suitable installments with the approval of Secretary in the Ministry, in consultation with the FA.
vi. Wherever the relevant rules provide for payment of interest on amounts retained by the employee beyond the stipulated period etc., as in the case of TA, interest would continue to be recovered from the employee as heretofore."
10. Furthermore, responding to the MA No.601/2024, regarding condonation of delay, the Counsel for respondent has stated that there S S SARALADEVI SARALADE CAT BANGALORE 2025.09.24 VI 14:16:41+05'30' 14 MA 601/2024 in OA 595/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH was a delay of more than 8 years from the date of the issue of penalty order by the applicant and not just 1107 days. He explains that the applicant retired on superannuation on 30.06.2015 and on the same day the penalty amount of Rs.52,148/- was deducted from his DCRG, in pursuance of the order dated 15.05.2015 (Annexure A1). However, the applicant has filed this OA 594/24 in October 2024, which is after a lapse of eight years. In this regard, he has invited our attention to Section 21 of Chapter IV of the Administrative Tribunals Act, which reads as follows :
"21(1) A Tribunal shall not admit an application,--
(a) in a case where a final order such as is mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 20 has been made in connection with the grievance unless the application is made, within one year from the date on which such final order has been made;"
The Counsel for respondents has also placed reliance on the judgement Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another vs. M.M.Sarkar reported in 2010 (2) SCC 59, which reads as follows :
"..................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 S S SARALADEVI SARALADE CAT BANGALORE 2025.09.24 VI 14:16:41+05'30'
15 MA 601/2024 in OA 595/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH 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 court's direction. Neither a court's 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. ........."
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that if someone wrongly extended a benefit, that cannot be cited as a precedent for claiming similar benefit by others. Furthermore, stating that repeated representations do not call for consideration by this Tribunal, he has drawn our attention to the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh and Punjab and Haryana High Court and another reported in AIR 1980 SC 1984. In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the successive representation made to the administrative authorities will not revive a claim which was barred by limitation or which had become stale by efflux of time. The relevant extract of the judgment is as follows:
S S SARALADEVI
SARALADE CAT BANGALORE
2025.09.24
VI 14:16:41+05'30'
16 MA 601/2024 in
OA 595/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
".......................The writ petition was filed in this Court in 1978, about eleven years after the dates from which the promotions are claimed. There is no valid explanation for the delay. That the petitioner was making successive representations during this period can hardly justify our overlooking the inordinate delay. Relief must be refused on that ground. ....................."
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.S.Rathore vs. State of M.P. reported in 1990 SC, has held that repeated unsuccessful representations not provided for by law shall not have the effect of extending the period of limitation.
"Submission of just a memorial or representation to the Head of the establishment shall not be taken into consideration in the matter of fixing limitation."
13. He has further highlighted the fact that this settled position is already accepted by this Tribunal also in its judgment and order dated 12.12.2006 in OA No.92/2006 Kaushal Kishore vs. Union of India and others. Moreover, full Bench of this Hon'ble Tribunal has also ruled that preliminary objection with regard to jurisdiction and limitation has to be decided first. In this regard the respondents placed S S SARALADEVI SARALADE CAT BANGALORE 2025.09.24 VI 14:16:41+05'30' 17 MA 601/2024 in OA 595/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arun Agarwal vs. Nagreeka Exports reported in (2002) 10 SCC
101.
14. Subsequently, the applicant has filed a rejoinder on 05.02.2025 to the reply statement filed by the respondent in OA No.595/2024. In this rejoinder also, the applicant has basically reiterated the averments which he had already made in the OA. He has also not been able to give any new evidence to justify the condonation of delay. He once again invited our attention to Annexure A7, which is related to Penalties and Disciplinary Authorities and stated that two penalties cannot be imposed on an individual for a single offence. The relevant portion extracted are as below:
"Railway Board's letter No.E (D&A) 62RG-26, dated 17th May. 1962. It is open to the competent authority to inflict in addition to the penalty of recovery from pay of the loss caused to the Government by negligence breach of orders, any of the penalties specified in Clauses (i). (ii), (iii)(a), (iv), (v) and (vi) of Rule 6 of the R.S.(D&A) Rules, 1968 by way of one and the same order and in pursuance of one and the same proceedings S S SARALADEVI SARALADE CAT BANGALORE 2025.09.24 VI 14:16:41+05'30' 18 MA 601/2024 in OA 595/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH Rly: Board's Lr. No. E (D&A), dated 17-12-1963. The employee who is punished with withholding of increments temporarily for specified periods in more than one case separately, should not be restored to the next stage in the time scale after the expiry of the first punishment. He should be restored to the next stage only when the period of the other punishment is also over.
Rly. Board's Lr. No. E (D&A) 78 RG6-17, dated 29-7-1978. The appellate and reviewing authorities while considering the appeal revision petition may take into account the quantum of financial loss that would be sustained by the employee whose increment has been withheld in the authorised scale on refixation in the revised scale of pay and accordingly reduce or modify the penalty Railway Board's Lr. No. E (D&A) 82 RG 6-84, dated 4th January, 1983. Cases have come to Board's notice where the penalty of withholding of increments is proposed to be imposed on a delinquent official who is already at the maximum stage in his scale of pay. Such a penalty becomes infructuous as it cannot be enforced.
In order to ensure proper application of such a punishment, it is necessary that The disciplinary authorities should first verify from the service sheet of the charged officer whether it S S SARALADEVI SARALADE CAT BANGALORE 2025.09.24 VI 14:16:41+05'30' 19 MA 601/2024 in OA 595/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH is possible to implement the same in the cases to be referred to the Central Vigilance Commission also for its second stage advice, this verification should be done and the details of pay scale and pay actually being drawn by the official indicated Necessary steps may be taken to ensure compliance."
15. Applicant has stated that the above Rules also clearly indicate that the Disciplinary Authority can impose a single penalty and another penalty cannot be imposed by an authority other than Disciplinary Authority. The applicant has also filed a rejoinder to the reply statement of the respondents in the MA No.601/2024 on 05.02.2025. In this rejoinder no new facts or fresh evidence regarding justification of the delay caused has been given.
16. We have heard the applicant and the learned counsel for the respondents and have perused the pleadings and documents available on record.
17. We have given thoughtful consideration to the averments of the applicant and the learned counsel for the respondents.
S S SARALADEVI
SARALADE CAT BANGALORE
2025.09.24
VI 14:16:41+05'30'
20 MA 601/2024 in
OA 595/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
18. It is correct that while considering the application for condonation of delay, a compassionate and liberal approach should be adopted but it cannot be at the expense of speedy justice nor can the same may be permitted without justifiable grounds. In this case, there is a delay of 8 years between the date of the order of punishment, which is 15.05.2015 and the date on which the applicant has filed this OA on 16.10.2024. The applicant has filed MA No.601/2024 on 16.10.2024, Rejoinder to the reply statement of respondents on the OA No.595/2024, on 05.02.2025 and rejoinder to the reply statement of respondents on the MA No.601/2024, on 05.02.2025, in which he has not brought any new facts to the notice of this Tribunal. He has essentially reiterated what he had already covered in the OA. Even if, as per the assertions of the applicant in OA, MA, and rejoinder to reply statement on the OA and MA, that the respondents were stonewalling and steadfastly refusing the repeated request of applicant for furnishing relevant information to him, nothing prevented him to come to this Tribunal and seeks redressal for the same between 2015 and 2024. This delay of almost 8 years is totally inexplicable.
S S SARALADEVI
SARALADE CAT BANGALORE
2025.09.24
VI 14:16:41+05'30'
21 MA 601/2024 in
OA 595/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
19. In addition to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the relevant OMs cited by the Counsel for the respondents there are many other judgments where the Courts have held that delays should be condoned only in exceptional circumstances. The same are cited as below:
i. Ram Chandra Samanta V/S UOI, 1994 (26) ATC 228.
ii. Secretary to Govt. of India V/S Shivaram M. Gaikwad, (1995) 30 ATC 635=1995 (6) SLR (SC) 812.
iii. L. Chandra Kumar V/S Union of India, 1997 (2) SLR (SC) 1.
iv. 1996 LLJ 1127 (SC) UOI V/S Bhagnoar Singh. v. 2002 (5) SLR (SC) 307 E. Parmasivan & Ors VS UOI & ors. AT Act, 1985-Article 226- Writ Petition-Delay and latches Maintainability of writ petition-Limitation- Application before Tribunal in 1995, by retired MES officers Retirement between 31st January, 1974 to 31st May, 1985, for fixation of pay in term of OM dated 12th January, 1976. Tribunal is right in dismissing applications on grounds of limitation.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically ruled that stale claim cannot be gone into by this Hon'ble Tribunal. This settled position is already accepted by this S S SARALADEVI SARALADE CAT BANGALORE 2025.09.24 VI 14:16:41+05'30' 22 MA 601/2024 in OA 595/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH Hon'ble Tribunal in its judgment and order dated 12th December, 2006 in O.A.No.92 of 2006 Kaushal Kishore V/S Union of India & others. Moreover, Full Bench of this Hon'ble Tribunal has also ruled that preliminary objection with regard to jurisdiction and limitation has to be decided first. The Respondents also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arun Agarwal v/s Nagreeka Exports reported in (2002) 10 SCC 101.
vi. Esha Bhattacharjee Vs Management Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, 2014 (1) SLJ (SC) 20. For quick reference, relevant portion is under:
".....22. The law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and wasted time would never revisit. During the efflux of time, newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So, a lifespan must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to S S SARALADEVI SARALADE CAT BANGALORE 2025.09.24 VI 14:16:41+05'30' 23 MA 601/2024 in OA 595/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time. We have painfully re-stated the same.
23. Ex consequenti, the appeals are allowed and the order passed by the Division Bench condoning delay is set aside......."
20. In the case of Union of India VS L. Chandrakumar, the of Constitution bench has held that the period of limitation prescribed in Section 21 is strict one. In the latest judgement dated 21st November, 2017, in the case of Ravinder Kumar VS UOI & ors reported in 2018 (1) SLJ (SC) 150- Held, inordinate delay of more than 5 years in filing of application may not be condoned. Power of the High Court to issue an appropriate writ under Article 226 of Constitution is discretionary.
21. In view of the above facts and circumstances and keeping in mind the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the UOI VS M K Sarkar (sura) and Easha Bhattacharjee Vs Management Committee of Raghunathpur (supra) and facts on record, no good and sufficient ground are made out for condonation of S S SARALADEVI SARALADE CAT BANGALORE 2025.09.24 VI 14:16:41+05'30' 24 MA 601/2024 in OA 595/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH delay and accordingly MA No.601/2024 is hereby dismissed. Consequently, OA is also dismissed as time barred. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed.
sd/- sd/-
(SANTOSH MEHRA) (JUSTICE B.K.SHRIVASTAVA)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER(J)
sd.
S S SARALADEVI
SARALADE CAT BANGALORE
2025.09.24
VI 14:16:41+05'30'