Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow
Pankaj Shukla Aged About 38 Years Son Of ... vs Union Of India Through Secretary on 3 July, 2015
Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow Original Application No.332/00189/2015 This the 3rd day of July, 2015 Honble Sri Navneet Kumar, Member (J) Pankaj Shukla aged about 38 years son of late Sri Prem Prakash Shukla r/o ED-134, Sector Q, Aliganj, District- Lucknow, Applicant By Advocate:- Sri G.S. Maurya Versus 1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India, New Delhi. 2. Registrar General of India, 21 A Maan Singh Road, New Delhi-110011. 3. Director , Directorate of Census Operation, Uttar Pradesh, Lekhraj Market-111, Indira Nagar, Lucknow-226016. Respondents By Advocate: Sri Rajesh Katiyar ORDER (ORAL)
BY HONBLE SRI NAVNEET KUMAR, MEMBER (J) The present O.A. is preferred by the applicant u/s 19 of the AT Act, with the following reliefs:-
i) Issue an order or direction quashing the order dated 29.10.2009 passed by the opposite party No. 2 (contained as Annexure No.1) whereby rejecting the application for appointment of the application on compassionate grounds.
ii) Issue an order or direction to the opposite parties to reconsider the case and appoint the applicant on the compassionate ground within a stipulated period of time.
iii) issue an order or direction which this Honble Tribunal may deem fit, just and proper in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.
iv) cost of the application may be awarded to the application.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant is the son of the deceased employee late Prem Prakash Shukla who was working with the respondents on the post of Compilar died on 14.10.2002. The applicant applied for grant of compassionate appointment and his application was kept on pending with the authorities and applicant continuously under the process of reminding the competent authority for taking a decision on his representation and finally the respondents have passed an order rejecting the claim of the applicant by means of impugned order dated 29.10.2009 wherein the respondents have indicated that the scheme of compassionate appointment is a welfare measure introduced by the Govt. with a view to enable the family of the deceased Govt. employee to tide over the sudden crisis, relieve it from financial destitution and help it to get over the emergency.
3. The respondents have also indicated in the said order that the case of 12 applicants were accordingly considered along with other applicants but they were not found to be most deserving cases of similarly situated requests. Therefore, it was not possible to accept the requests of the applicant and accordingly it was rejected. The applicant thereafter kept on waiting for about a period of 6 years and filed O.A. before this Tribunal in the year 2015.
4. On behalf of the respondents, a plea is taken that the present O.A. is barred by limitation as the prayer clause of the O.A. shows that the applicant is claiming for quashing of the order dated 29.10.2009 which is a rejection of the claim of the applicant for appointment on compassionate ground. Learned counsel for respondents has also drawn the attention of the Bench towards Section 21 of the AT Act which provides for limitation and vehemently argued that the present O.A. is liable to be dismissed as the applicant has not taken any good ground for condoning the delay.
5. Heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the records.
6. The applicant is the son of deceased employee who died in harness in the year 2002 and applicant applied for grant of compassionate appointment thereafter. However, the applicant failed to point out the reasons as to why he has not filed the O.A. before this Tribunal when his application for grant of compassionate appointment was not decided by the authorities within a period of one year from the date of its submission. The applicant has only taken a ground that being a poor person, he was not aware of the situation and he kept on requesting the authorities for considering his case for grant of compassionate appointment.
7. In terms of Section 21 of the AT Act , the present O.A. is liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation.
8. Honble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Sharma v. Udham Singh Kamal reported in 2000(2) SLJ SC 89 observed as under:-
21. Limitation (1) A tribunal shall not admit an application:
(a) In a case where a final order such as is mentioned in Clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 20 has been made in connection with the grievance unless the application is made, within one year from the date of which such final order has been made;
(b) In a case where an appeal or representation such as is mention in Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 20 has been made and a period of six months had expired thereafter without such final order having been made, within one year from the date of expiry of the said period of six months.
(2) xxx xxx xxx (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), an application may be admitted after the period of one year specified in Clause (a) or Clause (b) of sub-section (1) or, as the case may be, the period of six months specified in sub-section (2), if the applicant satisfies the Tribunal, that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period. Relying upon the aforesaid provisions, it was contended on behalf of the appellants that the O.A. filed by the first respondent Udham Singh Kamal was barred by limitation. No application for condonation of delay was filed. In the absence of any application under sub-Section (3) of Section 21 praying for condonation of delay, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to admit and dispose of O.A. on merits. It was, therefore, contended that the Tribunal has totally overlooked the statutory provision contained in Section 21 of the Act and, therefore, impugned order be set aside.
9. The Honble Supreme Court in another case reported in 1995 Supplementary (3) SCC 231 in the case of Secretary to Govt. of India v. Shivram Mahadu Gaikwad has held as under:-
2. . When we turn to the judgment of the Tribunal we find that there is no mention about the question of limitation even though it stared in the face. It would immediately occur to anyone that since the order of discharge was of 7-10-1986 and the application was filed in 1990, it was clearly barred by limitation unless an application for condoning the delay was made under Section 21(3) of the Administrative Tribunals Act. No such application was in fact made. Even if it was the contention of the employee that he was suffering from schizophrenia, that could have been projected as a ground for condonation of delay under sub-section (3) of Section 21 of the said statute. Even otherwise without insisting on the formality of an application under Section 21 (3) if the Tribunal had dealt with the question of limitation in the context of Section 21 we may have refrained from interfering with the order of the Tribunal under Article 136, but it seems that the Tribunal totally overlooked this question which clearly stared in the face. We fin no valid explanation on record for coming to the conclusion that the case for condonation of delay is made out. In the circumstances, there is no doubt that the application was clearly barred by limitation. It is also difficult to understand how the Tribunal could have awarded full back wages even for the period of delay for which the employee was solely responsible. However, since application itself is barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, it deserves to be dismissed.
10. As observed by the Honble Apex Court in the case of S.S. Rathore Vs. State of M.P. reported in 1989 4 SCC 582, repeated representation /reminders does not give rise to limitation. Not only this it is clear to the extent that the applicants father died in 2002 and he could survive for a period of more than 13 years. As such, there is no good ground to condone the delay in filing the original application. Accordingly, the O.A. is liable to be dismissed. O.A.is dismissed on merits as well as on the ground of limitation. No order as to costs.
(Navneet Kumar) Member (J) HLS/-