Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
Hrudananda Nayak vs Department Of Posts on 19 February, 2025
1 M.A.No. 260/00111 of 2024
O.A.No. 260/00083 of 2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
M.A.No. 260/00111 of 2024
(In O.A.No. 260/00083 of 2024)
Reserved on 11.02.2025 Pronounced on 19.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE SHRI SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J)
THE HON'BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A)
Hrudananda Nayak, Aged 62 years, S/o-Late
Bhagaban Nayak, At/Po-Dimiripalli, Via-Nuagaon,
Dist Nayagarh, Pin-752083, presently working as
GDS-MC, Dimiripalli BO i.a.w Nuagaon SO, Dist-
Nayagarh, Pin-752083.
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India represented through its Secretary
(Posts), Ministry of Communication, Department of
Posts, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Chief PMG, Odisha Circle, At/Po-Bhubaneswar
GPO-75100, Dist-Khurda.
3. Director of Accounts (Postal), At/Po-Mahanadi
Vihar, Dist-Cuttack, PIN-753004.
4. The Superintendent of Post, Nayagarh Division,
At/Po-Nayagarh, Dist-Nayagarh-752069.
5. The Postmaster, Nayagarh Ho, At/Po/Dist-
Nayagarh, PIN-752069.
......Respondents
For the Applicant : Mr. T. Rath, Counsel
For the Respondents : Mr. R.K.Sahoo, Counsel
2 M.A.No. 260/00111 of 2024
O.A.No. 260/00083 of 2024
ORDER
PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):
The applicant, who is working as GDS MC, Dimripalli BO, under Nayagarh HO has filed this OA on 13.02.2024 seeking to quash the fixation of his TRCA in new slab made vide Annexure-A/3 and steps taken consequence thereto vide letter dated 21.12.2012 (A/4) with direction to the respondents to refix his TRCA in terms of Rule 538 and 539 under Postal Manual Vol. IV Part-I (A/12) and inspection report dated 10.12.2011 (A/13) and pay him the consequential arrears to him. Simultaneously, by filing MA No. 111/2024, he has prayed to condone the delay and laches in filing this OA belatedly. Respondents filed objection to MA 111/2024 contesting the ground taken by the applicant in support of condoning the delay and laches as also counter to the main OA objecting to the merit of the matter. In the aforesaid circumstances, keeping in mind the specific provision under Section 21 of the At Act, 1985 and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme 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, we would like to deal with the MA No. 111/2024 filed by the applicant seeking to condone the delay and latches at the first instance. 3 M.A.No. 260/00111 of 2024
O.A.No. 260/00083 of 2024
2. The facts and grounds stated by the applicant in MA 111/2024 and reiterated in course of hearing are as under:
(a) The applicant's TRCA was reduced to a lower stage in the month of June-2012 with recovery of Rs. 1000/- per month as per the letter of DA (P) No-PAO/GDS Cell/ Puri/TR-235 dated 06.11.2011;
(b) He submitted representation on 17.09.2013. Since, no action was taken on his representation, he handed over the documents to one Advocate, Ramesh Chandra Champatiray, to file a case before this Tribunal, who assured him to take necessary action;
(c) When he came to know that this Bench allowed the OA Nos. 503 of 2013 and 216 of 2018 filed by Sri Bhagirathi Naik and Sri Ramesh Ch. Pattanaik relating to the similar grievance to that of the applicant, he went to the Chamber of Sri Champatiray and came to know that Champatiray had expired since 16.12.2022;
(d) Thereafter, he sought documents from Respondent No.3 under RTI Act vide application dated 30.11.2023 and, he was supplied some of the documents on 29.12.2023;
(e) Respondents are duty bound under the rules to revise applicant's TRCA by collecting statistics in every three years, which was not done intentionally. Due to inaction of the respondents, the applicant had to suffer continuously for none of his fault. Hence, the cause of action for filing the 4 M.A.No. 260/00111 of 2024 O.A.No. 260/00083 of 2024 present OA being continuous in nature, the OA is within the limitation, however, the present MA is being filed as an abundant caution only.
3. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondents that wage structure of Gramin Dak Sevaks (GDSs) working in the Department of Posts has been revised with effect from 01.01.2006 due to implementation of the recommendation of Sri R.S. Natraja Murti Committee as per the Directorate letter No. 6-1/2009-PE-II dated 09.10.2009 and arrears of TRCA consequent upon implementation of the report were to be payable with effect from 01.01.2006 to 30.09.2009 in cash in two installments of 40% and 60% spread over the financial year 2009-10 and 2010-11, after obtaining necessary undertaking from the concerned GDS employees in proforma Annexure-VI to the extent that "any excess payment found to have been made as a result of which incorrect fixation of TRCA or any excess payment detected in the light of discrepancies noticed subsequently will be refunded/adjusted against future payments".In the letter dated 09.10.2009, it was also instructed to fix the Time Related Continuity Allowance (TRCA) of all Gramin Dak Sevaks with reference to their existing work load, as on 01.01.2006 and cent 5 M.A.No. 260/00111 of 2024 O.A.No. 260/00083 of 2024 percent verification of fixation of TRCA shall be carried out by the Circle Postal Accounts Office, i.e., DA(P). During verification, it came to the notice that excess payment was made to the applicant towards TRCA from 01.01.2006 to 30.09.2009 and, therefore, recovery of the excess payment was ordered vide letter No PAO/GDS Cell/Puri/TR- 706 dated 21.12.2012. The recovery was started from January, 2013. If submission of the representation by him on 17.09.2013 is accepted as corrected then also this OA filed after more than one decade is hit by the provision under section 21 of the AT Act, 1985. Accordingly, respondents have prayed for dismissal of the MA and consequently, the OA also.
4. We have considered the submissions of the respective parties and perused the records.
5. According to the applicant, his TRCA was reduced to a lower stage in the month of June, 2012 with order of recovery of Rs. 1000/- per month as per the letter of DA (P) No-PAO/GDS Cell/ Puri/TR-235 dated 06.11.2011, against such action, he submitted representation on 17.09.2013 and, since no action was taken, he "handed over the documents to one Advocate, Ramesh Chandra Champatiray, to file a 6 M.A.No. 260/00111 of 2024 O.A.No. 260/00083 of 2024 case before this Tribunal", 'who assured him to take necessary action'. When he came to know that this Bench allowed the OA Nos. 503 of 2013 and 216 of 2018 filed by Sri Bhagirathi Naik and Sri Ramesh Ch. Pattanaik relating to the similar grievance as that of the applicant, he went to the Chamber of Sri Champatiray and came to know that Champatiray had expired since 16.12.2022. On this score, whether delay is liable to be condoned, came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Orissa in R.S.A. No. 228 of 2020 (Raju Banjara and others -vs- Bhikaru Gond) wherein, the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa was pleased to hold as under:
"4. In the case in hand, the delay occasioned in bringing the Appeal is assessed by the office at 2989 days, i.e more than six and half years. The sole ground advanced for the delay is that the Petitioners/Appellants handed over the brief to the lawyer but the lawyer concerned did not file the Appeal in time thereby got delayed in filing the Appeal and the same being not attributed to him is entitled to the relief.
5. In view of the contentions of the Appellants, it is imperative to examine if the Appellants was diligent in handing over the brief to the lawyer to escape their latches? Very surprisingly, the Petition is completely silent as to on what date (even by approximation) they handed over the brief to the lawyer engaged earlier. The name of the lawyer to whom the brief was handed over has also 7 M.A.No. 260/00111 of 2024 O.A.No. 260/00083 of 2024 not been revealed in the petition. Absence of such information creates a serious doubt if at all the matter was entrusted to the lawyer before the expiry of the period of limitation.
6. In order to correlate the ground vis-à-vis the circumstances appearing before the Appellants, when this Court examined the case record nothing left for the Court to doubt but to hold that truly the Appellants could not have disclosed the above information because the ground propounded by the Appellants is based on an absolute myth and blatant lie as the case record reveals that the application for certified copy of the Judgment itself was made by the Appellants on 03.11.2020 and was obtained on 09.11.2020 i.e six and half years beyond the period of limitation. Therefore, the plea of the Appellants that they had handed over the papers to the lawyer to file Appeal in time but the lawyer concerned did not file the Appeal is a plea advanced only to get out of the rigor of law. Rather, it can be said that the Appellants have made an attempt to take a false plea to overcome the issue of limitation though he himself remained callous to his own cause.
7. The Apex Court in P.K. Ramachandran Vs. State of Kerala and Anr., (1997) 7 SCC 556 held that in the absence of reasonable, satisfactory, or even appropriate explanation for seeking condonation of delay, the same is not to be condoned lightly.
8. Furthermore, the Apex Court in the case of Basawaraj and Anr. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81 observed and held that the discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously based on facts and circumstances of each case. It is further observed that the expression "sufficient cause" cannot be liberally interpreted if negligence, inaction, or lack of bona fides is attributed to the party; that even though limitation may harshly affect the rights of a party but it has to be applied with all its rigor when prescribed by statute and in case a party has acted with negligence, lack of bona fides, or there is inaction then there cannot be any justified ground for condoning the delay even by imposing conditions. It is 8 M.A.No. 260/00111 of 2024 O.A.No. 260/00083 of 2024 further observed that each application for condonation of delay has to be decided within the framework laid down by the Court. The Apex Court also held that if courts start condoning delay where no sufficient cause is made out by imposing conditions then that would amount to a violation of statutory principles and showing utter disregard to the legislature.
9. It is trite that law helps a vigilant, not an indolent. In the instant case the Appellants have remained completely recalcitrant in espousing his cause and made up his mind one fine morning to agitate the same. The Appellants had absolutely no mind to file Appeal. Had any such intention was there they could have at least applied for the certified copy of the Decree and obtained the same within the limitation prescribed i.e 90 days. Therefore, there is no ground explained to condone the delay much less to speak of sufficient cause. Relying on the ratio propounded in various decisions as discussed coupled with the one in the matter of Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao vs Reddy Sridevi & Ors. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.7696 OF 2021] this Court finds no merit in the Petition filed by the Appellant for condonation of delay by 2989 days i.e approximately six and half years which is not only deliberate but intentional.
10. The Petition for condonation of delay being devoid of merit accordingly stands rejected and the I.A is dismissed. In the circumstance there is no order as to cost."
6. In the instant case, according to the applicant, he "handed over the documents" to Late Champatiray, but, the date on which he handed over the documents has not been stated. No explanation has been given for keeping himself silent over near about one decade in not pursuing to file the OA by the said Advocate. It is stated that when similar OAs filed by others were disposed of, he went to the 9 M.A.No. 260/00111 of 2024 O.A.No. 260/00083 of 2024 Chamber of late Champatirai and came to know that he has expired since 16.12.2022 but the pleadings is completely silent when he visited the chamber of the late Champatiray. It was obligatory on his part to be vigilant for filing the OA after handing over the documents to his the then Advocate, if at all it is correct. Thus, on an overall reading of the grounds taken in support of condonation of delay, it appears to be nothing but like a cock and bull story to draw sympathy of this Tribunal to condone the delay, which is not permissible in law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in the case of Raju Banjara (supra). In view of the discussions made, the above grounds taken by the applicant in support of condonation of delay does not stand to judicial scrutiny.
7. The next stand of the applicant that this being a payment of TRCA comes within the recurring cause of action, and, therefore, there is no delay. We are not inclined to accept this stand for the simple reason that if one is entitled to TRCA as per Rules but the same was reduced is something seeking to make him entitled to and pay. In the instant case, the relief, which the applicant is claiming, is to direct to respondents to make him entitled to get the specific 10 M.A.No. 260/00111 of 2024 O.A.No. 260/00083 of 2024 TRCA by making review of the workload etc. and pay him, which, in our considered view does not come within the meaning of recurring cause of action. We are reminded by a few decisions on the particular points of exercising discretion by the Court to condone the delay, which are discussed infra.
8. In the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewarage Board and Others v. T.T. Murali Babu, 2014 (4) SCC 108, the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that ".....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."
9. In the case of Commissioner, Nagar Parishad, Bhilwara v. Labour Court, Bhilwara, (2009) 3 SCC 525, it was opined by the Hon'ble Apex Court that while deciding an application for condonation of delay the High Court ought not to have gone into the merits of the case. "If negligence can be attributed to the appellant, then necessarily the delay which has not been condoned by the 11 M.A.No. 260/00111 of 2024 O.A.No. 260/00083 of 2024 Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court deserves to be accepted. However, if no fault can be laid at the doors of the appellant and cause shown is sufficient then we are of the considered view that both the Tribunal and the High Court were in error in not adopting a liberal approach or justice-oriented approach to condone the delay"....
10. In Maqbul Ahmad and Ors. vs. Onkar Pratap Narain Singh and Ors., A.I.R. 1935 PC 85, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that Court cannot grant an exemption from limitation on equitable consideration or on the ground of hardship. The Hon'ble Court has time and again repeated that when mandatory provision is not complied with and delay is not properly, satisfactorily and convincingly explained, it ought not to condone the delay on sympathetic grounds alone.
11. In this connection, a reference may be made to Brijesh Kumar and Ors. vs. State of Haryana and Ors., 2014 (4) SCALE 50, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court further laid down that if some persons have obtained a relief approaching the court just or immediately when the cause of action had arisen, other persons 12 M.A.No. 260/00111 of 2024 O.A.No. 260/00083 of 2024 cannot take the benefit of the same by approaching the court at a belated stage simply on the ground of parity, equity, sympathy and compassion.
12. In Lanka Venkateswarlu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (2011) 4 SCC 363, the Hon'ble High Court despite unsatisfactory explanation for the delay of 3703 days had allowed the applications for condonation of delay; the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the High Court failed to exercise its discretion in a reasonable and objective manner. High Court should have exercised the discretion in a systematic and an informed manner. The liberal approach in considering sufficiency of cause for delay should not be allowed to override substantial law of limitation. The Court observed that the concepts such as 'liberal approach', 'justice-oriented approach' and 'substantial justice' cannot be employed to jettison the substantial law of limitation.
13. It has also been settled vide State of Jharkhand & Ors. vs. Ashok Kumar Chokhani & Ors., AIR 2009 SC 1927, that the merits of the case cannot be considered while dealing with the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
13 M.A.No. 260/00111 of 2024
O.A.No. 260/00083 of 2024
14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pathapati Subba Reddy (dead) by LRS and Ors vs The Special Deputy Collector (JA), Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 31248 of 2018 dated April, 8, 2024, taking into consideration the aforesaid decisions held as under:
"26. On a harmonious consideration of the provisions of the law, as aforesaid, and the law laid down by this Court, it is evident that:
(i) Law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should be an end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather than the right itself;
(ii) A right or the remedy that has not been exercised or availed of for a long time must come to an end or cease to exist after a fixed period of time;
(iii) The provisions of the Limitation Act have to be construed differently, such as Section 3 has to be construed in a strict sense whereas Section 5 has to be construed liberally;
(iv) In order to advance substantial justice, though liberal approach, justice-oriented approach or cause of substantial justice may be kept in mind but the same cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of limitation contained in Section 3 of the Limitation Act;
(v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is 14 M.A.No. 260/00111 of 2024 O.A.No. 260/00083 of 2024 inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence;
(vi) Merely some persons obtained relief in similar matter, it does not mean that others are also entitled to the same benefit if the court is not satisfied with the cause shown for the delay in filing the appeal;
(vii) Merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay; and
(viii) Delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters laid down for condoning the delay and condoning the delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed, tantamount to disregarding the statutory provision.
xxx xxxx xxxx
30. The aforesaid decisions would not cut any ice as imposition of conditions are not warranted when sufficient cause has not been shown for condoning the delay.
Secondly, delay is not liable to be condoned merely because some persons have been granted relief on the facts of their own case. Condonation of delay in such circumstances is in violation of the legislative intent or the express provision of the statute. Condoning of the delay merely for the reason that the claimants have been deprived of the interest for the delay without holding that they had made out a case for condoning the delay is not a correct approach, particularly when both the above decisions have been rendered in ignorance of the earlier pronouncement in the case of Basawaraj (supra)."
15. From the aforesaid decisions, it is clear that Court/Tribunal cannot exercise the discretion to condone the delay unless sufficient cause for such belated approach is explained. In the instant case, 15 M.A.No. 260/00111 of 2024 O.A.No. 260/00083 of 2024 since the applicant utterly failed to show/explain sufficient cause to condone the delay of over a period of more than one decade in filing this OA, we see no ground to exercise the discretionary relief to condone the delay.
16. For the discussions made above, MA stands dismissed and, as a consequence, the OA fails and is accordingly dismissed by leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
(Pramod Kumar Das) (Sudhi Ranjan Mishra) Member (Admn.) Member (Judl.) RK/PS