Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of
JUDGMENT
SHRI K.K. SAXENA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.D.K.Sharma and Ms.Supriti Roy, Advts.
Through: Ms.Avnish Ahlawat, standing counsel DoE with Mr.N.K.Singh, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI G.S. SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. The prayer made in the O.A. filed by the petitioner stands dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) vide order dated 12.07.2011 on the ground of delay and laches. The Tribunal has observed that the delay in approaching the tribunal is of more than seven years.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was prevented from approaching the Tribunal on account of the fact that his salary was fixed as per the report of 3rd Pay Commission and being from a modest financial background, with lots of responsibilities to shoulder, he was left with no option but to continue working on a lower 2019:DHC:4709-DB pay scale than the ones he was rightfully entitled to. Several representations were made and since the petitioner did not have resources nor was he in the right frame of mind, he could not approach the Tribunal.
3. The period of limitation fixed under section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is one year from the date of cause of action.
4. Reliance is placed by the petitioner on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in M.R. Gupta vs Union Of India & Ors, 1995 (5) SCC 628 in support of his contention that since it is the petitioner's grievance that his pay fixation was not in accordance with the rules, it was a continuing wrong, giving rise to a recurring cause of action every month. Reliance is also placed on Union Of India & Anr vs Tarsem Singh reported as (2008) 8 SCC 648.
5. Ms.Avnish Ahlawat, counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on Union of India & Ors. vs. M.K.Sarkar Civil Appeal No.8151/2009 decided on 08.12.2009. Ms.Ahlawat has also placed reliance on D.C.S.Negi vs. Union of India and Ors. reported as (2018) 16 SCC 721 and submits that this judgment is fully applicable as it deals with Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Para12, 13 & 14 of D.C.S.Negi’s case (supra) are reproduced as under:
13. A reading of the plain language of the above reproduced section makes it clear that the Tribunal cannot admit an application unless the same is made within the time specified in clauses (a) and (b) of Section 21(1) or Section 21(2) or an order is passed in terms of sub-section (3) for entertaining the application after the prescribed period. Since Section 21(1) is couched in negative form, it is the duty of the Tribunal to first consider whether the application is within limitation. An application can be admitted only if the same is found to have been made within the prescribed period or sufficient cause is shown for not doing so within the prescribed period and an order is passed under Section 21(3).
14. In the present case, the Tribunal entertained and decided the application without even adverting to the issue of limitation. The learned counsel for the petitioner tried to explain this omission by pointing out that in the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, no such objection was raised but we have not felt impressed. In our view, the Tribunal cannot abdicate its duty to act in accordance with the statute under which it is established and the fact that an objection of limitation is not raised by the respondent/non-applicant is not at all relevant.”
6. We have heard learned counsels for the parties.
7. We find no infirmity in the view taken by the Tribunal for the reasons that the grounds raised seeking condonation of delay are not convincing. For the petitioner to continue to draw salary and to say that he could not file an O.A. on account of modest financial background with lots of responsibilities, is vague, non-specific and does not inspire confidence.
8. With the above observations, the writ petition stands dismissed. G.S. SISTANI, J ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J SEPTEMBER 18, 2019 rb