ORDER :

(Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.)

1. Invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the writ petitioner herein has filed this writ petition calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned order dated 22nd January, 2020 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Circuit Sitting at Bilaspur, by which petitioner's application for condonation of delay in filing application under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (herein after referred as “the Act, 1985”) has been rejected and consequently, the original application has also been dismissed.

2. Petitioner's husband late Shri N. Laxman Rao was working with respondent – Railway as a Gate Keeper. He was subjected to disciplinary proceeding for his misconduct, whereas, in disciplinary proceedings, by order dated 30.11.2010 he was inflicted with the penalty of compulsory retirement and ultimately by order dated 10.12.2010 he was compulsorily retired. Against the order of compulsory retirement he filed the appeal before the Appellate Authority and the same was dismissed by order dated 28.06.2011 against which he preferred the revision petition before the Revisional Authority and before his revision could be disposed off finally, he left for heavenly abode on 13.09.2011. Thereafter, on 09.11.2011 his revision was dismissed by the Revisional Authority and the Revisional Authority directed vide Annexure P/4 that revisional order be informed to the family members of the deceased employee. In the meanwhile, the petitioner herein (wife of railway servant) left Chhattisgarh and started living with her parents at Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh with two minor sons finding financial crisis and having no accommodation of her own in Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh and she could not be served with the revisional order. In the month of February, 2018 she came back to Raipur, Chhattisgarh and collected some documents and made representation to the Divisional Railway Manager (for short 'DRM'), Raipur (Annexure P/6) on 17.02.2018 and claimed all retiral benefits which was rejected by DRM by order dated 14.06.2018 (Annexure P/7) and thereafter, petitioner preferred Original Application with application for condonation of delay under Section 21(3) of the Act, 1985 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which was rejected by the impugned order relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India & Ors. vs. M.K. Sarkar, (2010) 2 SCC 59, holding that the dead and stale claim cannot be entertained by the Tribunals.

3. Feeling aggrieved against the order of Tribunal, the petitioner herein filed this writ petition stating that tenor and texture of order dated 09.11.2011, she was never served with the revisional order, anyhow she came back to Bilaspur and filed the application and explained the delay which the Tribunal did not consider it favourably and rejected the application by recording a finding perverse to the record.

4. Detailed reply has been filed, opposing the writ petition stating inter alia that the petitioner’s application for condonation of delay has rightly been rejected and consequently, the original application has also been rejected as no sufficient cause was shown for deliberate delay of 8 years in filing the original application before the Tribunal, as such, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

5. Mr. D.K. Swain, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Tribunal has erred in holding that there is inordinate delay in filing the original application. Revisional order 09.11.2011 (Annexure P/4) itself would show that it was directed to be served to family members of late N. Laxman Rao which was never served and when she came back to Raipur in February, 2018 from Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, then she inquired the matter and got the copy of the documents and then she filed the representation before the DRM, Raipur, which was rejected vide order dated 14.06.2018 (Annex