Moni Singh Krotia v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors

1. This writ petition arises out of order dated 16 October 2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal[1] in OA 3859/2015, preferred by the petitioner, which has been dismissed on the ground that OA was barred by res judicata and limitation, without going into merits.

2. The petitioner had earlier approached the Tribunal by way of OA 671/2003 seeking appointment as OT Technician in Lal Bahadur Shashtri Hospital. That OA was disposed of in the following terms: “the Tribunal” hereinafter

3. Apparently having represented and not succeeded in having his appointment as OT Technician made effective from 12 October 2002, the petitioner re-approached the Tribunal by way of OA 3859/2015.

4. Strangely, the Tribunal has disposed of the OA in the following fashion:

5. We are truly surprised at the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. It is completely incomprehensible, to us, as to how the Tribunal has held that “in one way”, it “had specifically adjudicated the claim of the applicant regarding the appointment from retrospective date also”. It appears that, while so holding, the Tribunal did not properly read paras 12 and 13 of its earlier order, which stand extracted in the immediately preceding paragraphs of its order. In para 12 of the earlier order dated 24 April 2009, the Tribunal specifically observed that it was not possible for the Tribunal to take note of the petitioner’s claim for retrospective appointment and granted him permission to represent in the matter.

6. Obviously, therefore, the Tribunal had not adjudicated on the petitioner’s claim for retrospective appointment with effect from 12 October 2002.

7. As per the liberty granted by the Tribunal and having reapproached the Tribunal, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal could not have dismissed the petitioner’s OA on the ground of res judicata and limitation without going into merits.

8. Interestingly, the Tribunal has computed limitation also w.e.f. the date of its earlier order dated 24 April 2009. We are unaware of any law by which the limitation to approach the Tribunal is computed from the date of an earlier order passed by the Tribunal.

9. We say no more.

10. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order is quashed and set aside.

11. OA 3859/2015 is restored to the Tribunal to be decided on merits. As the OA was dismissed even without calling for a counter affidavit, let a counter affidavit be filed within four weeks by the respondent before the Tribunal. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within four weeks by the petitioner.

12. As the OA is of considerable vintage, we request the Tribunal to take a decision on the said OA as expeditiously as possible, preferably within twelve weeks from the date of hearing.