Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Digambar Mahadev Gaikwad vs M/O Railways on 6 January, 2025
1
MA No.652/2024 along with OA No.110/2020
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH, MUMBAI.
MISCELLENEOUS APPLICATION No.652/2024
along with
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.110/2020
Dated this Monday the 06th day of January, 2025
CORAM: Hon'ble Shri Justice M.G. Sewlikar, Member (J)
Hon'ble Shri Santosh Mehra, Member (A)
1. Shri Digambar Mahadev Gaikwad
At Post Kundewadi (Gitakunj)
Tal - Niphad Dist. Nasik - 422 303
Age 40 years.
2. Smt. Laxmibai Mahadev Gaikwad
At/Post Kundewadi (Gitakunj)
Tal - Niphad Dist. Nasik 422 303.
Age 63 years. ... Applicant
(By Advocate Shri S.B. Deore)
VERSUS
1. Union of India,
Secretary, Ministry of Railway,
Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi 110 011.
2. General Manager (Central Railway)
Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Terminus
Mumbai 01.
3. Chief Administration Officer (Construction)
New Admin. Building 6th floor, D N Road,
CSMT Mumbai-01.
Page 1 of 23
2
MA No.652/2024 along with OA No.110/2020
4. Dy. CE (Construction)
Near DRM Office Bhusawal Dist- Jalgoan -425201.
5. Mr. Shripad Vishwanath Kulkarni,
Retired Senior Depot Store Keeper (Construction)
Bhusawal Const. Division.
R/at- Flat No- B5, Dream Presidency, Near P E School,
Jail Road, Nasik Road, Nashik-422101.
... Respondents
(By Advocate Shri N.K.Rajpurohit)
Order Reserved on: 04.12.2024.
Pronounced on: 06.01.2025.
ORDER
Per: Santosh Mehra, Member (A)
In the present petition, arguments were reserved on MA No.652/2024, an application for condonation of delay which is being decided by the present order.
2. The present OA has been filed by the applicant requesting for the following reliefs:
"8.a) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to consider the termination period of deceased Mahadev Bhawanrao Gaikwad from 04/01/1984 to 12/04/1984 as illegal, null and void and hence set aside the said illegal termination and count it as regular/continuous service And/or
8.b) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased be direct the Respondent to consider the status of deceased Mahadev Page 2 of 23 3 MA No.652/2024 along with OA No.110/2020 Bhawanrao Gaikwad as permanent status based on circular dated 22/08/1962, 21/03/1974 and as held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in UOI V/s Presiding Officer Labour Court decided on 13/07/1988 And/Or
(c) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent to give compassionate appointment to Applicant i.e. Digambar Mahadev Gaikwad from 1997 based on Respondents Circular dated 14/03/1997 and to count his regular/continuous service since 1997 and grant all back wages @ 9% p.a.And/Or
(d) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct Respondent authority to grant monetary compensation to Applicants for the mental agony and sufferings suffered by them on account of negligence, omission illegality and reneged behaviour of Respondent authority.
(e) Cost of this Petition may please be provided to Applicants.
(f) Any other order as deem fit by this Hon'ble Court may be passed in favour of Applicants."
3. Along with OA, MA No.652/2024 was filed for condonation of delay by stating the following:
3.1 The deceased, who is father of the applicant was appointed as casual labour Gang Mate (Mumkadam) at Manmad Railway Station in the year 1963. On 18th November, 1972 after 206 working days the deceased was discharged from service in the Page 3 of 23 4 MA No.652/2024 along with OA No.110/2020 afternoon and again after 1½ days he was re-engaged on 20th November, 1972. On 23rd December, 1983 deceased Mahadev Bhawanrao Gaikwad was sent for medical examination under B1 category to ADMO Manmad to grant him temporary status Unfortunately, the deceased Mahadev Bhawanrao Gaikwad was declared temporarily unfit under B1 category and was directed by ADMO to come on 23rd March, 1984 for re-examination.
Consequent to the deceased being declared temporarily unfit under medical category B1 by ADMO Manmad, he was Removed from Service by the Respondent authority and his name was deleted from muster rolls w.e.f. 04th January, 1984. 3.2 Learned counsel for the applicants states that there was no delay on the part of Applicants in filing the OA. He has annexed documents along with this petition to show that they had been asking for the service records of deceased Mahadev Bhawanrao Gaikwad since 1995. However, the Respondents, always provided false information that the service records of deceased Mahadev Bhawanrao Gaikwad had been destroyed and Page 4 of 23 5 MA No.652/2024 along with OA No.110/2020 hence information could not be provided. Applicant No.1 initially applied under RTI Act on 14th September, 2007. Subsequently, he was allowed to carry out physical inspection of documents by Dy. CE (C) Bhusawal on 02nd February, 2018. The Applicant could trace the LTI Register and Muster Roll of his father, the deceased Mahadev Bhawanrao Gaikwad. Based on these documents, which this Applicants got on 02nd February, 2018, Applicants made representation which came to be rejected last on 08th July, 2019. Hence, the OA is well within limitation and there is no delay in preferring the OA.
3.3. Learned counsel for the Applicants submits that this delay of 34 yrs is not attributable to Applicant. The delay was from Respondent's side as the Respondent, since 1995 till 2018, provided wrong information to the Applicant that his father was not in service and that no documents of record in respect of his father i.e. deceased Mahadev Bhawanrao Gaikwad were available, as all related records are destroyed after lapse of ten years as per Rules. According to him, the cause of action in Page 5 of 23 6 MA No.652/2024 along with OA No.110/2020 respect of compassionate appointment started with the Circular No. RBE 39/97 dated 14th March, 1997 whereby the Respondents extended the benefits of compassionate appointment to the wards of causal labour who acquired Temporary Status and who expired prior to 31.12.1986. Prior to the said Circular No. 39/97, there was a Circular No- 256/86 under which the Respondents granted the benefits of the compassionate appointment to the wards of a causal labour with temporary status who died in harness on or after 31st December, 1986. Thus, by virtue of Circular No-39/97, the Applicant became entitled to compassionate appointment. 3.4. Learned counsel for the Applicants further submits that the initial application for compassionate appointment was made by the Applicant in the year 1995, 1998, 1999, 2001. He further submits that in pursuant to ibid mentioned representation first time, the Respondent vide letter dated 30th August, 1999 stated that the any such record of the employee is preserved only for 10 yrs after that they are destroyed. Again, vide letter dated 24th March, 2001, the Respondent gave the same answer that the Page 6 of 23 7 MA No.652/2024 along with OA No.110/2020 records are preserved for 10 yrs and thereafter, they are destroyed. 3.5 Applicant submits that the Respondent vide letter dated 07th November, 2017 and 22nd January, 2018 again informed the Applicant that there were no records of his deceased father i.e. Mahadev Bhawanrao Gaikwad. It was only when the Applicant preferred an application under RTI Act 2005 for personal visit for inspection to the office of Dy CE(C) Bhusawal under whom the father of the Applicant deceased i.e. Mahadev Bhawanrao Gaikwad had worked there. The Applicant found the relevant documents i.e. LTI register which demonstrated that his father was appointed in the year 1971 and after completion of 206 days was given break of 1 and 1/2 days and again was appointed on 20th November, 1972.
3.6 Applicant submits that after finding the said documents, Applicant again made representation in respect of compassionate appointment wherein the Respondent vide letter dated 11th October, 2018 rejected the contention of the Applicant on the ground that after 33 yrs it was not feasible to condone the Page 7 of 23 8 MA No.652/2024 along with OA No.110/2020 extra ordinary absence of 80 days of the deceased employee as authorized absence. Further it was also not feasible to grant temporary status after delay of 33 yrs in the absence of 360 days continuous service.
3.7 It is further averred that the Applicant filed the OA on 09th December, 2019 immediately after the Respondent vide their letter dated 08th July 2019 informed the Applicant that his father did not die in harness. He contends that as per Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, OA has been preferred within 01 year of the disposal given by the respondent vide order dated 08th July, 2019. As the applicant preferred the present application on 09th December, 2019 it is within limitation. 3.8 Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., 1987 AIR(SC) 1353 in which it is held thus:
Tribunal has to be liberal while considering the Application for condonation of delay and has laid down Page 8 of 23 9 MA No.652/2024 along with OA No.110/2020 principles in this behalf which are as follows: -
"1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.
II. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.
III. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner.
IV. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other; cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. V. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account Page 9 of 23 10 MA No.652/2024 along with OA No.110/2020 of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs a serious risk.
VI. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so."
4. Respondents have filed their reply stating that Shri. Mahadev Gaikwad had expired on 05th October, 1985. They highlight that the present OA is filed on 09th December, 2019 by the Applicant No.1 at the age of 40 years. Thus, the OA suffers from delay and latches and hence on this ground itself the same is liable to be dismissed with cost.
4.1 Learned counsel for the respondents invited our attention to this Tribunal's order dated 30th January, 2020. The relevant details in chronological order are reproduced below for quick reference:
I) In the OA filed by the applicant on 09th December, 2019, the relief which he had asked for is as follows:
"8.a) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased be direct the respondents to consider the status of deceased Mahadev Page 10 of 23 11 MA No.652/2024 along with OA No.110/2020 Bhawanrao Gaikwad Temporary from the year 1963 and further grant him permanent status.
8.b) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to consider the termination period of deceased Mahadev Bhawanrao Gaikwad from 04/01/1984 to 12/04/1984 as illegal, null and void and hence set aside the said illegal termination and count it as regular/continuous service.
(c) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased be direct the Respondent to consider that deceased Mahadev Bhawanrao Gaikwad died in harness and hence is entitled for service pension and other retirement benefits.
(d) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent to grant the pensionary dues and all other retirement benefits of deceased to this Applicants @ 9% p.a from the date of death of deceased Mahadev Bhawanrao Gaikwad.
(e) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent to grant the compassionate appointment to Applicant No-1 i.e. Digambar Mahadev Gaikwad from 1997 and to count his regular/continuous service since 1997 and grant all back wages @ 9% p.a.
(f) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct Respondent authority to grant monetary compensation to Applicants for the mental agony and sufferings suffered by them on account of negligence, omission illegality and reneged behaviour of Respondent authority.
(g) Cost of this Petition may please be provided to Applicants.
(h) Any other order as deem fit by this Hon'ble Court may be passed in favour of Applicants."Page 11 of 23
12
MA No.652/2024 along with OA No.110/2020 II) Subsequently, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that he will not press for the claims vide para 8(a) to 8
(d) and would confine only to compassionate appointment. Accordingly, this Tribunal passed the following order:
"Shri. S. B. Deore, learned counsel for the applicant.
Heard on the point of admission. At this stage, learned counsel has submitted that he does not press the reliefs claimed vide para 8(a) to (d) and that he only press for Compassionate Appointment to the Applicant. He is directed to replace page No. 31 onwards in the OA within a period of one week. Thereafter, notice be issued to the respondents. The applicant has sought permission to file separate OAs for relief clause 8 (a) to 8 (d), he is at liberty to file separate OAs claiming these reliefs.
List the matter on 19-03-2020."
III) However, despite the above-mentioned clear instruction of this Tribunal, the revised relief sought for in OA which is the present one is as follows:
"8.a) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to consider the termination period of deceased Mahadev Bhawanrao Gaikwad from 04/01/1984 to 12/04/1984 as illegal, null and void and hence set aside the said illegal termination and count it as regular/continuous service And/or
8.b) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased be direct the Respondent to consider the status of deceased Mahadev Page 12 of 23 13 MA No.652/2024 along with OA No.110/2020 Bhawanrao Gaikwad as permanent status based on circular dated 22/08/1962, 21/03/1974 and as held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in UOI V/s Presiding Officer Labour Court decided on 13/07/1988 And/Or
(c) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent to give compassionate appointment to Applicant i.e. Digambar Mahadev Gaikwad from 1997 based on Respondents Circular dated 14/03/1997 and to count his regular/continuous service since 1997 and grant all back wages @ 9% p.a.And/Or
(d) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct Respondent authority to grant monetary compensation to Applicants for the mental agony and sufferings suffered by them on account of negligence, omission illegality and reneged behaviour of Respondent authority.
(e) Cost of this Petition may please be provided to Applicants.
(f) Any other order as deem fit by this Hon'ble Court may be passed in favour of Applicants."
Thus, it is clear that despite the clear directions of the Tribunal in pursuance of own submissions of learned counsel for the applicant, compliance was not carried out. 4.2 Regarding condonation of delay, the learned counsel for the respondents have relied upon several judgements, some of which are as under:
Page 13 of 23 14
MA No.652/2024 along with OA No.110/2020
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 Hon'ble Tribunal in its judgement 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 Page 14 of 23 15 MA No.652/2024 along with OA No.110/2020 preliminary objection with regard to jurisdiction and limitation has to be decided first. The Respondents also relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arun Agarwal v/s Nagreeka Exports reported in (2002) 10 SCC 101.
vi) UOI VS M K Sarkar reported in (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 1126.
vii) 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 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 Page 15 of 23 16 MA No.652/2024 along with OA No.110/2020 aside......."
4.3 It is further submitted that 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.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned counsel for the respondents and have perused the pleadings and documents available on record.
6. We have given thoughtful consideration to the averments of the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned counsel for the respondents.
7. The chronological sequence of events which has taken place from 1972 till 2023 are as follows: Page 16 of 23 17
MA No.652/2024 along with OA No.110/2020 Date Events 18.11.1972 After working 206 days, the deceased was discharged from service in the afternoon and again after 1 ½ days he was re-engaged on 20.11.1972.
1983-1985 Deceased was transferred to Nasik depot and till his death i.e. on 05.10.1985 he was serving at Nasik Depot.
23.12.1983 Decease Mahadev Bhawanrao Gaikwad was sent for medical exam under B1 category to ADMO Manmad to grant him Temporary Status.
Unfortunately deceased Mahadev Bhawanrao Gaikwad was declared temporary unfit under B1 category and was directed by ADMO to come on 23.03.1984 for re-examination.
04.01.1984 He was removed from service by respondent authority and his name was deleted from muster rolls w.e.f. 04.01.1984.
28.03.1984 Deceased Mahadev Bhawanrao Gaikwad was again directed by respondent vide their letter dated 28.03.1984 to ADMO Manmad for medical re-exam under B1 category.
13.04.1984 Deceased Mahadev Bhawanrao Gaikwad was given fresh appointment on 13.04.1984 after he was declared medically fit for B1 category. 04.05.1984 (Annexure A-6 Page 49) Letter of Railway board regarding appointment on compassionate grounds of wards casual labour who die in harness.
05.10.1985 Deceased Mahadev Bhawanrao Gaikwad died in harness.
31.12.1986 (Annexure A-6 Page 50) Revised letter of Railway board regarding appointment on compassionate grounds of wards of casual labour who die in harness.
02.08.1997 Applicant No.2 (wife of the deceased) on 02.08.1997 made Representation to respondent authority for providing job on compassionate ground.
Page 17 of 23 18
MA No.652/2024 along with OA No.110/2020 Date Events 14.03.1997 (Annexure A-6 Page 54) another revised letter of Railway board regarding extension of Compassionate Ground Appointment cases prior to 31.12.1986.
10.11.1998 (Page 58 (A) First letter of wife of the deceased Laxmibai Gaikwad requesting for compassion- ate appointment for her son.
03.08.1999 Vide his letter dated 30.08.1999 Respondent informed Applicant No.2 that they do not keep the record beyond 10 years.
05.02.2001 Letters of Applicant no.2 i.e. the wife of the with deceased Laxmibai Gaikwad requesting for 03.08.1999 compassionate appointment for her son. 14.09.2007 RTI Application by applicant Digamber Gaikwad to Deputy Chief Engineer Bhusawal. 22.01.2018 Shri T.K. Mandal - Chief Personnel Officer (Admin) vide his letter replied to the Secretary (Estt.), Ministry of Railways, that the records of deceased Shri Mahadev Bhawanrao Gaikwad were not traceable.
02.02.2018 Applicant No.1 sought for inspection of record at Dy. CE (C)/Bhusawal under RTI Act.
22.01.2018 Letter of CPO Admn. to Secretary Railways expressing inability for compassionate appointment for son of the deceased.
Letter of the applicant to GM Central Railway 10.09.2018 Mumbai for compassionate appointment for self. 11.12.2018 Letter of Chairman RRC to Secretary Railway regretting CGO for applicant.
09.12.2019 OA Date
8. From the above, the following conclusions can be drawn:
1) The documents on record indicate that Mr. Mahadev Page 18 of 23 19 MA No.652/2024 along with OA No.110/2020 Bhawanrao Gaikwad was removed from service by the respondents' authority and his name was deleted from the Muster Roll on 04th January, 1984.
2) At no point of time, the deceased Mr. Mahadev Bhawanrao Gaikwad was given the status of Temporary Worker in the organization.
3) The wife of the deceased applied for compassionate appointment based on the new and revised Rules cited (supra) in 1997. She had also applied earlier. Thus, the wife of the deceased repeatedly kept applying for compassionate appointment and for securing the relevant records to the respondents right from 1997 onwards.
4) The son of the deceased who is the applicant No.1 in this OA attained majority in 2001.
5) There is nothing on record to indicate that the son of the deceased, who is the applicant in this OA applied for compassionate appointment between 2001 (when he became major) and 2017.Page 19 of 23 20
MA No.652/2024 along with OA No.110/2020
6) Though the cause of action arose for the applicant in 2001, when he became major (in the light of Circular RBE No.30/97 issued on 14th March, 1997), the applicant neither applied to the respondents for compassionate appointment nor approached this Tribunal for redressal of this grievances till the filling of this OA in 2019.
9. The documents on record show that throughout this period of almost two decades i.e. from 1997 onwards it was the wife of the deceased who is applicant no.2 in this OA who kept on applying to the respondents for compassionate appointment for herself and /or her son. Thus, though the cause of action arose for the applicant in the present OA 110/2020 in 2001, for reasons best known to him, he did not approach the Tribunal till 2019.
10. The present Applicant No.1 in this OA No.110/2020 made a formal request for compassionate appointment to the Respondent as late as on 10th September 2018, though he became Page 20 of 23 21 MA No.652/2024 along with OA No.110/2020 Major in 2001. All throughout, it was his mother who is applicant No.2 in this case, who had been sending applications for compassionate appointment either for self or for her son to the Respondent.
11. In terms of the Railway Board letter No.E(NG) II/84/CL/28 dated 04th May, 1984, the two necessary conditions for consideration for compassionate appointment were:
"1. The Ex-Casual Labour has been granted Temporary Status.
2. The ex-Casual Labour has died in harness i.e. while in service."
The applicant failed to provide requisite documentary evidence, at least till 2018 that the above two conditions were fulfilled. It is also pertinent to mention here that the powers of the General Manager, for appointment of the words of casual labour with temporary STATUS, who died in harness was again confined to appointment as Casual Labour (Fresh face) or as substitute, subject to certain eligibility criteria. This is evident from para five of the RBE No. 256 / 86 dated 31st December, 1986. It is difficult to believe that the applicant is fulfilling the Page 21 of 23 22 MA No.652/2024 along with OA No.110/2020 eligibility criteria, being around 45 years of age, at this late stage, after lapse of almost four decades of the death of his father.
12. It is also seen that despite specific order of this Tribunal vide order dated 30th January, 2020 which is reproduced (supra), no action was taken for the compliance of the directions of this Tribunal.
13. 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 jus- tice nor can the same may be permitted without justifiable grounds. In this case, though the applicant attained majority in 2001, it took him almost 18 years to file this OA. There is noth- ing on record to show that he made active efforts in this direc- tion except when he filed RTI application. It is seen that at this moment of time, he is now 45 years of age.
14. Even if, as per his assertions in OA that the respondents were stonewalling and steadfastly refusing the repeated request of applicant no.2 and himself for furnishing Page 22 of 23 23 MA No.652/2024 along with OA No.110/2020 relevant information to them for more than two decades, nothing prevented him to come to this Tribunal and seek redressal for the same between 2001 (when he became major) and 2019 when he finally filed this OA. This delay of almost 18 years is totally inexplicable.
15. 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 (supra) and Esha Bhattacharjee Vs Management Committee of Raghunathpur (supra) and facts on record, no good and sufficient grounds are made out for condonation of delay and accordingly MA No.652/2024 is hereby dismissed. Consequently, OA is also dismissed. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed.
(Santosh Mehra) (Justice M.G. Sewlikar)
Member (A) Member (J)
dm.
Deepti Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=
dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547 843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Ganesh Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c 542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Page 23 of 23 Location:
Munarshi Date: 2025.01.10 09:55:58+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0