Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Shiv Muni vs M/O Railways on 13 February, 2018
Author: P. Gopinath
Bench: P. Gopinath
1
( M.A. No. 1366/2017 in
OA No. 060/01072/2017 )
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
...
Miscellaneous Application NO. 060/1366/2017 in
ORIGINAL APPLICATION N0. 060/01072/2017
Chandigarh, this the 13th day of February, 2018
...
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J) &
HON'BLE MRS. P. GOPINATH, MEMBER (A)
...
1. Shiv Muni age 58 years, son of Sh. Sarjoo, earlier employed
as Trolleyman now working on the post of Chowkidar, (Delhi
Division) Kurukshetra, Resident of T-23/A, Railway Colony,
Shahabad Markanda, District Kurukshetra-136135 (Group-
D).
2. Jitender Kumar age 33 years, s/o Shiv Muni Resident of T-
23/A, Railway Colony, Shahabad Markanda, District
Kurukshetra 136135.
....APPLICANTs
(Argued by: Shri Suneel Ranga , Advocate)
VERSUS
1. Union of India through the Secretary to the Government of
India, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. General Manager, Northern Railways, Headquarter Office,
Baroda House, New Delhi.
3. Divisional Railway Manager (Personnel), Northern Railways,
New Delhi.
4. Sr. Section Engineer (Signal), Northern Railways (Delhi
Division), Kurukshetra.
....RESPONDENTS
(By Advocate: Shri Lakhinder Bir Singh)
2
( M.A. No. 1366/2017 in
OA No. 060/01072/2017 )
ORDER (Oral)
SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J) M.A. No. 060/01366/2017 Heard.
2. The applicants have filed present M.A. for condonation of delay of 954 days in filing the accompanying Original Application (O.A.). This Court, at the first instance, issued notice in the application for condonation of delay, to which the respondents have filed reply.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicants vehemently argued that since representation against the orders, rejecting their claim is pending with the respondents, therefore, there is no delay in filing the accompanying O.A. and the matter be heard on merits.
4. Learned counsel for respondents while resisting the claim of applicants submitted that the applicants have sought relief for quashing of order dated 24.01.2014 (Annexure A-10) declining the request of applicant no.1 for appointment of his son Sh. Jitendra Kumar (applicant no.2) under the LARSGESS Scheme by filing accompanying O.A. in 2017, thus, there is huge delay in filing the O.A., therefore, M.A. be dismissed.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and are in agreement with the submissions made at the hands of the respondents that this application deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. Because the applicant no.1 had filed 3 ( M.A. No. 1366/2017 in OA No. 060/01072/2017 ) application on 27.4.2012 for appointment of his son under the LARSGESS Scheme, which could not be considered because applicant no.1 was declared medically unfit on the post of Trollyman and was absorbed as Chowkidar on 27.11.2012. Subsequent representation dated 9.12.2013 has also been rejected on 24.1.2014. Thus, the cause of action firstly arose when respondents rejected his claim in the year 2012 and subsequently in the year 2014 when his representation has been rejected Instead of approaching the Court of law, the applicant keep submitting representations and has challenged their decision by filing the accompanying O.A. only in the year 2017. It is also seen that there is no cogent reason to condone the huge delay. Merely filing the representations followed by legal notice does not extend the period of limitation. Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 mandate that O.A. has to be filed within one year from the date of cause of action, which can be extended by another 6 months if statutory appeal or representation is pending. It is a general principle of law that law is made to protect only diligent and vigilant people. Equity aids the vigilant and not the indolent. Law will not protect people who are careless about their rights. (Vigilantibus non dormientibus jur A subveniunt). Moreover, there should be certainty in law and matter cannot be kept in suspense indefinably. It is, therefore, provided that Courts of Law cannot be approached beyond fixed period. Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 has been interpreted by their Lordship in number a of cases including C.Jacob versus Director Geology & Mining (2008) (10) S.C.C Page 115), Union of India & Ors. 4
( M.A. No. 1366/2017 in OA No. 060/01072/2017 ) Versus M.K. Sarkar reported in 2010 2 SCC 59, Union of India & Ors. Versus A. Durairaj reported in JT 2011 (3) SC 254 where the Lordships held that limitation is to be counted from the date of the original order. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the submissions, accordingly the M.A. is dismissed being devoid of merit.
(P. GOPINATH) (SANJEEV KAUSHIK)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
Dated: 13.02.2018
`SK'
5
( M.A. No. 1366/2017 in
OA No. 060/01072/2017 )
From the perusal of the aforesaid section, it is clear that under the Act, the limitation prescribed for filing O.A. before this Tribunal is within one year from the date of cause of action. The same cannot be extended by another six months from the date of filing of appeal if the same is not decided. It has further been stated that if the application is not filed within time as stipulated in Section 21 of the A.T. Act, then the applicant has to move a Misc. Application for seeking condonation of delay by explaining each day s delay in not filing the Original Application within the limitation. Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act 1985 came up for consideration before the Hon ble Apex Court in following cases:-
(a) S.S. Rathore v. State of M.P.(1990 SCC (L&S) 50) ;
(b) Administrator of Union Territory of Daman and Diu and others Vs. R.D. Valand 1995 Supp(4) Supreme Court Cases 593;
(c) State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. S.M.Kotrayya & Ors.(1996 (6) S.L.R. S.C. Page
664);
(d) P.K.Ramachandran versus State of Kerala & Another (J.T. 1997(8) S.C. Page
189);
(e) Karnataka Power Corporation Limited through its CMD & Another versus K.Thangappan & Another (2006(4) S.C.C. Page 322);
(f) U.P.Jal Nigam versus Jaswant Singh & Ors. (2007(1) S.C.T. Page 225;
(g) C.Jacob versus Director Geology & Mining (2008 (10) S.C.C Page 115) ;
(h) Union of India & Ors. v. M.K. Sarkar reported in (2010)2 Supreme Court Cases 59; and
(i) Union of India & Ors. Versus A.Duairaj (J.T. 2011(3) S.C. Page 254).
In S.S. Rathore s case, their Lordship has held that successive representations cannot extend the period of limitation. Relevant observations made in paras 20 & 21 in the said judgment reads as under : -
20. We are of the view that the cause of action shall be taken to arise not from the date of the original adverse order but on the date when the order of the higher authority where a statutory remedy is provided entertaining the appeal or representation is made and where no such order is made, though the remedy has been availed of, a six months period from the date of preferring of the appeal or making of the representation shall be taken to be the date when cause of action shall be taken to have first arisen. We, however, make it clear that this principle may not be applicable when the remedy availed of has not been provided by law. Repeated unsuccessful representations not provided by law are not governed by this principle.6
( M.A. No. 1366/2017 in OA No. 060/01072/2017 )