Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Varun Kumar Yadav Son Of Late Ravindra ... vs Union Of India Through Its Defence ... on 10 April, 2012
[Open Court] CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ALLAHABAD BENCH ALLAHABAD (THIS THE 10th DAY OF April, 2012) PRESENT: HONBLE MR. D.C. LAKHA, MEMBER-A ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 432 OF 2012 (U/s, 19 Administrative Tribunal Act.1985) Varun Kumar Yadav son of late Ravindra Kumar Yadav Resindent No. 78/72 Jawaharganj Dharhariya, Post Kacheri, District Allahabad. . . . . . . . .Applicant By Advocate: Shri A.D. Singh Versus 1. Union of India through its Defence Secretary, New Delhi. 2. Dy. Controller of Accounts (Adm) Office of Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension), Dropadi Ghat, Allahabad. 3. Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension), Dropadi Ghat, Allahabad. 4. Maha Niyantrak Raksha Lekha, Maha Niyantrak Karyalaya West Block 5, Ram Krishna Puram, New Delhi. 5. Assistant Controller of Defence Accounts (AN) Office of the Principal Controller Defence Accounts (P) Allahabad. . . . . . . . . . Respondents O R D E R
Instant O.A. has been preferred seeking following relief:
i) quash and set aside the impugned order dated 23.5.2006 (Annexure No. A-1 to Compilation No. I of this O.A.)
ii) Directing the respondents to reconsider the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment on any post and place with all consequential benefit.
iii) Grant such other reliefs, as then applicant might be found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. By way of preliminary submission the learned counsel for the applicant stated that he is not going to press for all the reliefs in this O.A. Referring to interim relief prayer, counsel has referred to representations dated 26.4.2007 and of 27.2.2009 (Annexures A-16 and A-18) preferred by the applicant to the concerned authority for seeking appointment on compassionate ground. He has also stated that these representations had already been directed on 3rd June, 2008 by the President of India to be decided by the concerned department. He has submitted that these representations are still pending. The impugned order dated 23.5.06 (A-1) has been passed by the respondents on the representation dated 27.4.2006 after examining the case and rejecting the same in view of Scheme of D.O.P. & T. dated 5.5.2003 and 9.10.1998. Since the applicants counsel does not want to insist on all the reliefs, he has been heard in detail only on the interim relief prayer seeking direction for the respondents to decide and dispose of the pending representation as referred to above. Delay condonation application has also been moved alongwith this O.A. It is seen from this application that death of the applicants father occurred on 31.1.99. In para 4 of the application, it is stated that the mother of the applicant as well as other dependants have been continuously pursuing the matter till date and making representations one after other to the concerned authorities, but no action has been taken by the department and the case could not be decided because of the non cooperative attitude of the department. Another ground taken to explain the delay is that the applicant has been facing paucity of funds, due to which he could not come to the court and could not present the O.A. earlier. The learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment delivered by the Hon. High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition No. 2281 of 1999 reported in ATJ 2000(3), 238 Eluri Marthamma vs. Divisional Railway Manager, S.C. Railway and others, in which it has been stated that compassionate appointment cannot be denied merely on the ground of limitation. Another citation relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant is 1996-AIR (SC)-0-1623, 1996-SCC-132 State of Haryana vs. Chandra Mani. I have seen the judgments of Hon. High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Hon. Supreme Court, as referred to by the learned counsel for the applicant.
3. The facts before me are that the applicant is seeking direction for deciding the representations dated 26.4.2007 and 20.7.2009. Before these representations the case of the applicant had been considered by way of impugned order dated 23.5.2006 as per direction of the Tribunal in O.A. 1137/2004 dated 4.4.2006. It is well settled law of the land that delay, to agitate the claim in a court of law, must be explained day by day by day and unless the delay is explained lucidly, the matter should not be entertained for adjudication. In this matter, in the delay condonation application, the main ground taken is paucity of funds with the applicant. Greater emphasis has been laid on the ground that the representations have been submitted before the respondents time and again, but the matter could not be decided, especially after the representations given on the interim relief prayer i.e. of 2007 and 2009. It is obvious that the present O.A. has been filed in the year 2012 i.e. on 4.4.2012, after a delay of about five years. This delay has not been satisfactorily explained as held by the Hon. Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 31085/2009 Tahir vs Union of India and ors. It is also well settled law of the land as held in the case of Ramesh Chand Sharma vs. Udham Singh Kamal and others (2000 SCC (L & S) 53, that series of representations cannot be taken as valid ground for any cause of action to be treated as continuous one.
4. Accordingly, the O.A. is highly time barred, and stale matter cannot be revived like this. It cannot be admitted for adjudication as per section 21 of the A.T. Act. Hence dismissed. No order as to costs.
Member (A) s.a ??
??
??
??
4