Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Prahalad Kumar Aged About 46 Years Son Of ... vs Union Of India Through The General ... on 26 May, 2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH , ALLAHABAD
M.A. No. 4155/2015 in
Original Application No. 330/01505/2015
Reserved on 6.5.2016
Pronounced on 26.5.2016
Honble Mr. Justice Dinesh Gupta, Member (J)
Honble Ms. Nita Chowdhury, Member (A)
Prahalad Kumar aged about 46 years son of late Baij Nath r/o Village Barendra P.O. Gorigo, Dist. Allahabad-212402.
Applicant
By Advocate: Sri H.S. Srivastava
Versus
1. Union of India through the General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur.
2. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager, North Eastern Railway, Varanasi.
3. The Divisional Railway Manager (Personnel), North Eastern Railway, Varanasi.
4. The Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer, North Eastern Railway, Varanasi.
5. the Coaching Depot Officer, North Eastern Railway, Manduadih.
Respondents
By Advocate:- Sri Anil Kumar
ORDER
By Honble Mr. Justice Dinesh Gupta, Member (J) The present O.A. is preferred by the applicant with the following reliefs:-
i) to quash the order dated 30.11.2001 issued by the respondent No. 4 and issue orders /directions to respondents to reinstate the applicant on his original post with all consequential benefits.
ii) to quash the order dated 29.1.2015 issued by the Divisional Railway Manager (Mechanical) , N.E. Railway, Varanasi.
iii) to issue any other order/direction as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
iv) to award the costs of this suit.
2. Since there is an inordinate delay in filing the O.A., the applicant has also moved delay condonation application.
3. The notice was issued to the respondents to file objection to the delay condonation application. In turn , the respondents filed objection to the delay condonation application.
4. Heard Sri H.S. Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for respodnets.
5. During the pendency of the delay condonation application, several Misc. applications has also been moved by the applicant bearing No. 4156 A of 2015, by which the applicant sought for deletion of relief no. II and subsequent sub paras III and IV be corrected numbered as II and III.
6. From the perusal of O.A., it appears that the applicant by relief No. II has prayed for quashing of order dated 29.1.2015. Now he has moved an application to delete this prayer. Since the applicant does not want to press this relief, application is allowed and relief No. II is deleted and accordingly paras III and IV be numbered as para No. II and III.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant in his delay condonation application has stated that the applicant is very poor and belongs to scheduled caste category candidate and after the death of his father, his family was left in destitute condition and the whole family including the applicant became the victim of suffering and decease. Due to poverty and paucity of fund, no proper treatment and nourishment could be given and after prolong sickness, the applicants only sister died. The applicant was left alone and was compelled to remain absent due to his own sickness. The destiny still not spared him from the pathos and sorrows and while performing his duties, he was hurt on duty and the Department was earlier sympathetic but to his ill luck, he was thrown out of the service arbitrarily by some of the harsh officers without completion of enquiry proceedings. The respondents while removing the applicant from service, put a ban on the applicant that the Railway would not entertain any appeal against the removal order. The applicant due to his own sickness and paucity of fund, could not take the shelter of the Court. He however, continued to represent against the illegal and wrongful discharge from service. He made first appeal on 30.11.2011 but no reply was received . He again represented on 8.7.2013 and not received any reply and then applicant submitted a review petition praying for quashing the removal order but respondents could not consider his prayer and the respondents authority kept mum.. The applicant lastly stated that delay in filing the O.A. is not malafide and only due to paucity of fund and his sickness as such the delay may be condoned and O.A. be heard on merit.
8. The learned counsel for respondents filed objection to the delay condonation application and submitted that the applicant has filed the present O.A. against the order dated 30.11.2011 by which after getting the explanation of show cause notice dated 11.11.2011 and as per para 301(2) of IREM, the applicant has been removed as Apprentice Technician Grade III due to unauthorized absence and not taking interest in training and applicant failed to give detail of day to day delay since 2011 till the filing of the present O.A. and no sufficient explanation of delay has been given. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the present O.A. is highly time barred and is liable to be quashed.
9. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that applicant failed to submit any affidavit in support of his condonation application as well as any documentary evidence. It is further submitted that applicant was appointed on compassionate ground subject to successful completion of training as Apprentice Technician Grade III within three years in June 2002 and he has reported for training on 28.6.2002 but in spite of passing of 9 years 3 months, he could not complete his training and absent for the period of 2257 days, accordingly as per relevant provision mentioned in the impugned order, applicant has been removed. Applicant was kept mum since 2011 and since then applicant remained silent and did not approach the Court. Mere filing of several representation does not give right to condone the delay.
10. Lastly, it is submitted that the application as malafide and no sufficient explanation and reason has been given . As such delay condemnation application is liable to be rejected.
11. Learned counsel for applicant reiterated the facts taken in the application and submitted that the applicant being a poor, could not file the present O.A. in time and delay is bonafide and deserves to be allowed.
12. Learned counsel for respondents submitted that applicant has failed to explain day to day delay and no satisfactory reason has been given for delay.
13. The counsel for the respondents further submitted that the O.A. is highly barred by limitation. The counsel relied upon the judgment in the case of Union of India vs. M. Sarkar reported in 2010 (92) SCC 59 and also the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. A. Durairaj reported in (2010)14 SCC 389 and submitted that in both the cases the Apex Court was of the opinion that the relief claimed by the applicant was highly belated and barred by the limitation.
14. We are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant for condoning the delay as the impugned order has been passed in 2011 and the present O.A. is preferred by the applicant in the year 2015. The application is also not supported by any affidavit or any documentary evidence. In absence of any affidavit or any documentary evidence in support of delay condonation application, the delay condonation application is not maintainable. It is true that mere filing of the representation is not sufficient to condone the delay. The applicant has entirely failed to submit any explanation for delay for more than 4 years and filed the present O.A. in the year 2015.
15. From the facts of the case, it is borne out that the applicant was appointed on compassionate ground and was supposed to complete his training within 3 years. He remained absent from duty for more than 6 years and could not complete his training and he was removed from service.
16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and grounds for condonation of delay, the applicant failed to make out any case, as such application for condonation of delay is rejected. Accordingly, O.A. is also dismissed on the ground of limitation. No order as to costs.
(NITA CHOWDHURY) (JUSTICE DINESH GUPTA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
HLS/-
1