Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Asi Sunder Lal vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 11 August, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH RA No.48 of 2011 MA 563 of 2011 IN OA NO.756 of 2008 NEW DELHI THIS THE 11th DAY OF AUGUST, 2011 HONBLE DR. RAMESH CHANDRA PANDA, MEMBER (A) HONBLE DR. DHARAM PAUL SHARMA, MEMBER (J) ASI Sunder Lal, (1002/D, PIS No.28750255) Presently posted at PCR, S/o Mr. Muni Ram, R/o Qtr. No. 58-C, Police Colony, Model Town-II, Delhi-9. Group C aged 53 years Review Applicant (By Advocate: Shri R.N. Singh for Shri R.V. Sinha ) VERSUS 1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Through Chief Secretary, Delhi Secretariat, New Delhi. 2. Commissioner of Police, PHQ, IP Estate, MSO Building, New Delhi. 3. Joint Commissioner of Police, Northern Railway, Delhi Through Commissioner of Police, Police HQ, IP Estate, MSO Building, New Delhi. 4. Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, North District, Delhi Through Commissioner of Police, Police HQ, IP Estate, MSO Building, New Delhi. Review Respondents (By Advocate : Ms. Rashmi Chopra ) O R D E R (oral) Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) :
The applicant in this OA has moved this RA praying to recall the order of this Tribunal dated 10.3.2010 in OA 756/2008. On receipt of notice by the Tribunal, the respondents have entered appearance and have taken preliminary objection on the issue of limitation. It has been claimed therein that instead of filing the present RA within the period of 30 days, the applicant has taken much more time to file this RA and as such RA is liable to be dismissed only on the sole ground of delay and laches.
2. Today we heard Shri R.N. Singh appearing on behalf of Shri R.V. Sinha, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Rashmi Chopra, learned counsel for the Respondents. The main controversy of limitation is taken up during the hearing. Shri R.N. Singh, learned counsel submits that the applicant could not get a copy of the order/judgment dated 10.3.2010 from his attending counsel. Accordingly, he applied for the same with the Registry of this Honble Tribunal and got the same on 15.4.2010. Thereafter, the applicant visited his attending counsel for a number of occasions and discussed the matter with him and requested him for taking further action, including filing of the accompanying application, who assured for the same. However, he could not do the needful for one reason or another and accordingly, the applicant decided to avail the service of some other counsel and approached the present counsel on 8.8.2010, who asked for the relevant pleadings and the same was arranged by the applicant and provided to him in August, 2010. The present counsel asked the applicant to meet him in September, 2010 on the 3rd Saturday, however, the applicant met with an accident and therefore, he could not contact his present counsel for filing of the Review Application. Thereafter, the applicant could met his present counsel again in December, 2010 when the ld. Counsel for the applicant asked to approach him again in the 1st week of January, 2010 and thus there has been some delay in drafting and filing of the accompanying review application.
3. Ms. Rashmi Chopra, learned counsel for the respondents contest the grounds and submits that the applicant has received the order of the Tribunal as far back on 15.4.2010 but chosen to submit the review application only on 1.2.2011.
4. We have gone through the Review Application as well as Application moved for condonation of delay. Admittedly, we find that there is no sufficient ground to condone the delay in filing the present Application and the MA for condonation of delay is dismissed. Accordingly, RA is also dismissed.
(Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma) (Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda)
Member (J) Member (A)
/ravi/