The main legal point established is that 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay should arise post the order being challenged and continue until the filing of the application, and the extension of limitation period due to the pandemic does not extend the period up to which the delay can be condoned.

JUDGMENT :

Jitendra Jain, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

2. This petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai (for short “Tribunal”) in Miscellaneous Application No.381 of 2022 in Original Application (O.A.) No.623 of 2022, whereby the Tribunal has refused to condone the delay in filing O.A. on the ground that no sufficient cause is shown for condoning the delay.

3. In the year 1975, the Petitioner was appointed as a Daily Farm Assistant at Aarey Milk Colony, Mumbai. By virtue of promotion in the year 1987, an order was issued whereby the services of the Petitioner were treated as permanent service for the post of “Field Supervisor”, which post he held since 1985.

4. On completion of 12 years of service as Field Supervisor, the Petitioner made an representations on 17th October 1997, 17 December 2004, 16th September 2007 and 16th April 2010 seeking benefits of Time Bound Promotion.

5. On 30th June 2010, the Petitioner retired from Government Service. Thereafter, on 27th December 2012 and 12th October 2015, further representations were made by the Petitioner seeking benefit of Time Bound Promotion. On 30th March 2016, the Respondent No.2 rejected the request for Time Bound Promotion on the ground that the qualification for the post of “Assistant Live Stock Supervisor” was not fulfilled by the Petitioner as certificate produced by the Petitioner was not from Live Stock Group and hence, he was not entitled to the benefit.

6. The Petitioner, thereafter, on 20th June 2022, approached the Tribunal in O.A. No.623 of 2022 seeking benefits of Time Bound Promotion. Since the O. A. was beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, a Miscellaneous Application was filed being Miscellaneous Application No.381 of 2022 praying for condonation of delay of 5 years from the period 30th March 2017 to 30th March 2020 in filing the Original Application primarily on the medical ground and post 30th March 2020 on account of Covid Pandemic.

7. The aforesaid Miscellaneous Application was heard and an order dated 20th April 2023, came to be passed by the Tribunal dismissing the said Miscellaneous Application and consequently, the O. A. on the ground that the delay in filing O.A. has not been explained sufficiently. It is on this backdrop that the present Writ Petition is filed challenging the order dated 20th April 2023 passed by the Tribunal refusing to condone the delay in filing the Original Application.

Submissions of the Parties:-

8. The Petitioner submitted that the order of the Tribunal is perverse and in support thereof took us through the index of the Original Application filed with the Tribunal. The Petitioner submitted that he had made various representations repeatedly, last being 12th October 2015 and since the benefit to which he was entitled to was continuous cause, the delay should be condoned. The Petitioner also reiterated the medical ground of his wife for the period from 2005 to 2022 and pandemic as reason for the delay. The Petitioner relied upon the decision in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Tarsem Singh, 2008 (8) SCC 648 and submitted that the impugned order be quashed and set aside and the delay in filing the Original Application be condoned.

9. Per contra, the Respondents supported the order of the Tribunal and submitted that no sufficient cause is shown by the Petitioner before the Tribunal and, therefore, this Court should not interfere in the order declining to condone the delay.

Analysis and Conclusion:-

10. We have heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and the Respondents and with their assistance have perused the documents annexed to the petition and the pleadings.

11. Section 21(1)(a) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 provides that the Tribunal shall not admit an application where a final order is passed reje