Central Administrative Tribunal - Patna
Manju Daw vs Anil Kumar Jain And Ors on 17 September, 2025
-1- MA 503/2025 & MA 544/2025 [Arising out of CP 28/21 & CP 27/21]
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PATNA BENCH
CIRCUIT SITTING AT RANCHI
Reserved on: 15.09.2025
Pronounced on: 17.09.2025
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JOHARI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. KUMAR RAJESH CHANDRA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
I. MA/051/00503/2025 (Revival of CP/051/00028/2021 that was
dropped on 21.03.2022) along with MA 504/2025 for
condonation of delay
1. Ashok Kumar Das, Son of Late Tej Narayan Das, resident of Quarter
No. C/15, Bhulinagar, P.O. & P.S. - Bhulinagar, District-Dhanbad,
Pin- 828104.
2. Brahmdeo Prasad, Son of Late Sukhdeo Prasad, resident of Quarter
No. A/157, Bhulinagar, P.O. & P.S.- Bhulinagar, District- Dhanbad,
Pin- 828104.
3. Naresh Kumar Karan, Son of Late Sarva Narayan Das, resident of
Loharkuli, P.O. & P.S.- Saraidhela, District- Dhanbad, Pin- 828127.
4. Bihari Lall, Son of Kashi Late Jagdeo Sharma, resident of Quarter
No. 2/32, Jagjivan Nagar Old Colony, P.O. & P.S.- Jagjivan Nagar,
District- Dhanbad, Pin- 826003.
5. Manchand Sharma, Son of Late Jagdeo Sharma, resident of Qr. No.
A/238, Bhulinagar, P.O. & P.S.- Bhulinagar, District-Dhanbad, Pin-
828104.
6. Samir Dandapat, Son of Late Moti Lal Dandapat, resident of
Jagjivan Nagar Old Colony, PO & PS- Jagjivan Nagar, District-
Dhanbad, Pin- 826003.
7. Chanda Kumari @ Chanda Benjamin, Daughter of Late Rang Lal
Das, resident of Quarter No. 1/76, Jagjivan Nagar, P.O. & P.S.-
Jagjivan Nagar, District- Dhanbad, Pin- 826003.
..... Applicants.
Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABI
SURYAROOP DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH", OU=govt,
Phone=4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841fe7c96ed,
PostalCode=800001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER=
20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4758f5dd33, CN=
SURYAROOP KABI
KABI
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Location:
Date: 2025.09.19 15:37:24+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
-2- MA 503/2025 & MA 544/2025 [Arising out of CP 28/21 & CP 27/21]
- By Advocate: Shri Ratnesh Kumar
-VERSUS-
1. Anil Kumar Jain, Secretary, Ministry of Coal, Shastri Bhawan, New
Delhi.
2. Animesh Bharti, O.S.D., Ministry of Coal, Kalyan Bhawan, Jagjivan
Nagar, Dhanbad.
3. Shri R.K. Mishra, Special Officer (Welfare), Office of O.S.D., Ministry of
Coal, Kalyan Bhawan, Jagjvan Nagar, Dhanbad.
4. Sanjay Kumar Sinha, regional Pay & Accounts Officer, Ministry of Coal,
Kalyan Bhawan, Jagjivan Nagar, Dhanbad.
....... Respondents
- By Advocate(s): Shri Amit Sinha, Addl. Standing Counsel
II. MA/051/00544/2025 (Revival of CP/051/00027/2021 that was
dropped on 21.03.2022) along with MA 545/2025 for
condonation of delay
1. Manju Daw Wife of Late Basant Chandra Daw, resident of Central
Hospital Kalla Colony, Asansol, P.O. Kalla Central Hospital & P.S. Asansol
(North), District- Burdwan, Pin-713340.
2. Brahma Tiwari, Son of Late Hari Nandan Tiwari, resident of Jealgora,
Old Hospital, Near Check Post, P.O.- Jealgora & P.S.- Jora Pokhar, District-
Dhanbad, Pin-828110.
3. Manohar Modak, Son of Late Tara Modak, resident of Quarter No.
1/60, Jagjivan Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Jagjivan Nagar, District- Dhanbad, Pin-
826003.
4. Bhagirath Prasad, son of Late Dukhi Prasad, resident of Quarter No.
A/240, Bhulinagar, P.O.- & P.S.- Bhulinagar, District- Dhanbad, Pin-
828104.
-3- MA 503/2025 & MA 544/2025 [Arising out of CP 28/21 & CP 27/21]
5. Mahesh Jha, son of Late Mahendra Jha, resident of Old Colony,
Quarter No. 1/11, Jagjivan Nagar, P.O. Jagjivan Nagar & P.S. Saraidhela,
District-Dhanbad, Pin-826003.
6. Ramanand Prasad Singh, son of Late Bindeshwari Singh, resident of
Near United Bank, Kalla, P.O. Kalla Central Hospital- & P.S.- Asansol
(North), District- Burdwan, Pin-713340.
7. Pancham Rajwar son of Late Bholanath Rajwar, resident of Village-Kola
Kusma (Manjhladih), P.O.- K.G. Ashram, P.S. Saraidhela, District-
Dhanbad, Pin-828127.
8. Rameshwar Mahto, son of Late Nepal Mahto, resident of Village-
Hariadih, P.O.- Kalyanpur, P.S.- Barwadda, District- Dhanbad, Pin-826004.
9. Nirodh Baran Mandal @ Nirod Baran Mandal, son of Late Amulya
Ratan Mandal, resident of Village-Damodarpur, P.O.- Damodarpur, P.S.-
Dhanbad, District- Dhanbad, Pin-826004.
10. Panchu Mahto, son of Late Harilal Mahto, resident of Village-
Kalyanpur, P.O.- Kalyanpur, P.S.- Barwadda, District- Dhanbad, Pin-
826004.
11. Lakshman Rajwar, son of Late Fagu Rajwar, resident of Q.No. 1/71,
Jagjivan Nagar, P.O.- Jagjivan Nagar, P.S.- Saraidhela, District- Dhanbad,
Pin-826003.
12. Rajendra Prasad son of Late Inderdeo Prasad, resident of A-type,
Q.No. A-5, Jagjivan Nagar, P.O.- Jagjivan Nagar, P.S.- Saraidhela, District-
Dhanbad, Pin-826003.
13. Anil Kumar Lal, son of Late Mathura Lal, resident of Q. No. A-6, A-
Type, Jagjivan Nagar, P.O.- Jagjivan Nagar, P.S.- Saraidhela, District-
Dhanbad, Pin-826003.
-4- MA 503/2025 & MA 544/2025 [Arising out of CP 28/21 & CP 27/21]
14. Inder Lal Rajwar son of Late Chotu Rajwar, resident of Quarter No.
A/417, Bhulinagar, P.O.- & P.S.- Bhulinagar, District- Dhanbad, Pin-
828104.
---Applicants.
- By Advocate: Shri Ratnesh Kumar
-Versus-
1. Anil Kumar Jain, Secretary, Ministry of Coal, Shastri Bhawan, New
Delhi.
2. Animesh Bharti, O.S.D., Ministry of Coal, Kalyan Bhawan, Jagjivan
Nagar, Dhanbad.
3. R.K. Mishra, Special Officer (Welfare), Office of O.S.D., Ministry of Coal,
Kalyan Bhawan, Jagjivan Nagar, Dhanbad.
4. Sanjay Kumar Sinha, Regional Pay & Accounts Officer, Ministry of Coal,
Kalyan Bhawan, Jagjivan Nagar, Dhanbad.
.........Respondents.
-By Advocate: Shri Amit Sinha, Addl. Standing Counsel
ORDER
Per Kumar Rajesh Chandra, A.M. :- Both the above Miscellaneous Applications have been preferred by the applicants for revival of CP No. 28/2021 ( arising out of OA No. 56/2017) and CP No. 27/2021 (arising out of OA No.109/2018) which were dropped by this Tribunal vide order dated 21.03.2022.
-5- MA 503/2025 & MA 544/2025 [Arising out of CP 28/21 & CP 27/21]
2. The revival of the above CPs has been sought on the ground that due to technical glitches the counsel for the applicant could not attend the proceedings on 21.03.2022 on which date both the CPs were dropped by the Tribunal with a specific observation that it was not known to the Tribunal as to whether direction given by the Tribunal was complied with or not. It is further submitted that the Tribunal gave directions in OA No. 109/2018 with OA No. 56/2017 and as the case of the applicants was covered by the order dated 07.08.2018 passed in OA No. 55/2017. It is further contended that the respondents challenged the order dated 07.08.2018 passed in OA 55/2017 (Tara Devi & Ors.) before Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in WPS No. 1002 of 2019 wherein vide order dated 10.05.2022 the Hon'ble High Court upheld the order of this Tribunal. The applicants have further contended that though office order for payment of pro-rata pension in respect of applicants of OA No. 55/2017 (Tara Devi & Ors.) has been issued by the respondents in view of CP filed in that case, but since no contempt is pending in the instant cases the respondents are sitting tight over the matter. It is further alleged that since the respondents did not challenge the order dated 18.10.2019 passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 109/2018 and OA No. 56/2017 they are duty bound to treat the applicants in the same way as they are treating the applicants of OA No. 55/2017.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record carefully.
-6- MA 503/2025 & MA 544/2025 [Arising out of CP 28/21 & CP 27/21]
4. After hearing the parties, we note that the order dated 21.03.2022 passed in both the CPs reads as follows:-
"OA. No. 56/2017 and OA No. 109/2018 were disposed of by a common order dated 18.10.2019. In said O.As it was the contention of applicants that they are similarly situated to the petitioners in the WPS No. 1288/2012 (Mohan Mahto & Ors) and their main prayer in said OAs was for issuance of direction upon the respondents for grant of pro rata pension including arrears with compound interest. This Tribunal after hearing both the parties, at length and taking note of pleadings gave following direction to the respondents of said OAs :-
"(i) The respondents shall verify from records in regard to the service rendered by these applicants as casual labourers when they were working under CMLWO and, accordingly, reckon their qualifying years of service for grant of pensionary benefits to them for the rendered in the CMLWO. In case the records are not available then the period of service rendered by these applicants as casual labourers shall be reckoned on the basis of certificates issued by the concerned of officer of CMLWO under whom these applicants would have worked.
(ii) The applicants shall be entitled to the pensionary benefits as has been granted to the petitioners in Mohan Mahto & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.
(iii) The respondents shall determine the proportionate pension of the applicants within a period of three months and shall release the arrears within a month thereafter. The applicants shall be entitled for arrears of the pension as well as interest as has been given to the petitioners in Mohan Mahto & Ors (Supra)."
5. Now two separate contempt petitions have been preferred, CP No.27/2021 & CP No. 28/2021. CP 27/2021 has been preferred by 14 petitioners who were the applicants in OA No. 109/2018 and they have alleged violation/disobedience of order dated 18.10.2019 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. 109/2018 whereas CP 28/2021 has been preferred by 07 applicants of O.A No. 56/2017 for alleged violation/disobedience of order dated 18.10.2019 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. 56/2017.
6. These two contempt petitions were preferred in September 2021 and have come on Board several times but on every date, except
-7- MA 503/2025 & MA 544/2025 [Arising out of CP 28/21 & CP 27/21] 16th September 2021, none appeared for the applicant. On 16.09.2021 also ld. Counsel for the applicant took adjournment to do certain compliance. Six months have passed after filing of contempt petition, it is not known now whether direction given by the Tribunal has or has not been complied with by the respondents and no one is appearing on behalf of petitioners. In said backdrop it does not appear appropriate to initiate contempt proceedings. Needless to say that no show cause notice has yet been directed in either of these two contempt petitions. Further proceedings thus in both contempt petitions are dropped. A copy of this order be kept in CP 28/2021."
7. We also observe that applicants of OA No. 56/2017 preferred CP No. 17/2025 in order to pursue their remedy for implementation of order dated 18.10.2019 which was dropped on 18.02.2025 as being time barred. The said order dated 18.02.2025 reads as follows:-
"1. The issue requiring our consideration is the terminus a quo for commencement of the point of limitation in matters of contempt, in the light of provisions of section 20 of the Contempt of Court Act read with Article 129 & 215 of the Constitution of India and rule 2(h) of the CAT (Contempt of the Court Act) Rules, 1992. This would, in turn. require us to examine whether the contempt petition can be held to be maintainable on the ground of the respondents having continued to observe the order in the breach, in other words, whether there was a continuing wilful breach of the order passed by this tribunal dated 18 October, 2019, that stipulated compliance within a total of six months that expired on 18 April, 2020, amounting to civil contempt. This being a preliminary legal issue is proposed to be dealt with at the outset. The express negative phraseology used in section 20 of the Act, as a legislative injunction, places a fetter on the Tribunal's power to initiate proceedings for contempt unless the petition/application is presented within the time-frame stipulated therein. However, since section 20 also uses the expression "date on which the contempt is alleged to be committed as the starting point of the period of one year to be counted for reckoning whether the petition/application has been presented within the stipulated period, we
-8- MA 503/2025 & MA 544/2025 [Arising out of CP 28/21 & CP 27/21] ought to be wary of skilful drafting of petitions/applications to overcome the delay in presentation thereof.
2. Law is well-settled that the issue of limitation has to be considered with reference to the original cause of action. The period of limitation does not stand extended to the last of repeated representations made by a party, if filing of representation is not statutorily provided. Even this period is well outside the limitation.
3. The contempt petition is, however, entirely bereft of any pleading to the effect that the breach committed by the respondents is in the nature of a continuing wrong or breach or offence, so as to overcome the bar of limitation set by section 20 of the Act read with rule 2(h) of the CAT (Contempt of Court Act) Rules.
4. Needless to observe, hardly any other issue would survive for decision because this issue has been answered against the applicant.
5. This CP is severely barred by limitation of time as it has been filed after a long delay as per provision provided in the Act.
6. Hence, this CP is dismissed in limine."
8. In view of above clear decision of this Tribunal in CP No. 17/2025 which was filed for compliance of order dated 18.10.2019 passed in OA 56/2017 for which one of the instant CPs i.e. CP 28/2021 filed earlier has already been dropped vide order dated 21.03.2022, there is no reason for us to revive the above CPs.
9. Moreover, Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 317 of 2025 has passed an order on 08.01.2025 that inter alia deals with the subject of condonation of delay. A useful reference can be drawn from para 16 & 17 of the decision.
"16. The length of the delay is definitely a relevant matter which the court must take into consideration while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not.
From the tenor of the approach of the respondents herein, it appears that they want to fix their own period of limitation for the purpose of instituting the proceedings for which law has prescribed a period of limitation. Once it is held that a party has lost his right to have the matter considered on merits
-9- MA 503/2025 & MA 544/2025 [Arising out of CP 28/21 & CP 27/21] because of his own inaction for a long, it cannot be presumed to be non- deliberate delay and in such circumstances of the case, he cannot be heard to plead that the substantial justice deserves to be preferred as against the technical considerations. While considering the plea for condonation of delay, the court must not start with the merits of the main matter. The court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. It is only if the sufficient cause assigned by the litigant and the opposition of the other side is equally balanced that the court may bring into aid the merits of the matter for the purpose of condoning the delay.
17. We are of the view that the question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration. The rules of limitation are based on the principles of sound public policy and principles of equity. No court should keep the 'Sword of Damocles' hanging over the head of a litigant for an indefinite period of time."
10. We further observe that the ground that has been taken by the applicants that in view of the chaotic situation because of the COVID-19 pandemic situation the delay occurred. Now we are in the year 2025 hence such arguments appear to be too far-fetched and ludicrous. The additional reasons such as technical glitches in appearing through Video conferencing mode and only two adjournments also reveal the lack of seriousness on the part of the applicants and not at all convincing. Accordingly, MA No. 504/2025 filed in CP 28/2021 as well as MA No. 545/2025 for condonation of delay in filing the CP 27/2021 stands dismissed as severely barred by limitation of time. There is no need for us to even deal with the merit of the case as the delay has not been condoned and accordingly all the MAs including MAs No. 503/2025 and 544/2025 are dismissed as severely barred by limitation of time.
[Kumar Rajesh Chandra] [ Justice Narendra Kumar Johari ]
Administrative Member Judicial Member
Srk.