Back
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : R.P. Vyas
Radha Kishan Sharma - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1312 of 2006
Decided On : 09/01/2006
Delay Condonation - Service Benefits - The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, Section 21
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a former railway employee, filed a petition challenging the dismissal of his application for service benefits due to delay. The court considered the issue of delay condonation under Section 21 of The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Tribunal erred in rejecting the original application on the ground of limitation, as the complaint was against inaction by the authority and not against any order. It held that the discretionary power to condone delay should be exercised liberally, considering the inaction on the part of the department.
Issues: The main issue was whether the delay in the application for service benefits should be condoned under Section 21 of The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 21 of the Act and held that in cases where the complaint is against inaction by the authority, the limitation period does not commence until an order is made. It emphasized the need for a liberal exercise of discretionary power to condone delay, considering the inaction on the part of the department.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, the Tribunal's order was set aside, and the original application was restored for consideration on merit.
N.N. Mathur, J.-By way of instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner Radha Kishan challenged the order of the CAT, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur dated 23.08.2005 dismissing Original Application No.67/2005 having refused to condone the delay in Miscellaneous Application No.40/2005.
2. At the outset, it may be pointed out that the pending writ petition, petitioner Radha Kishan died on 21.07.2006 and, as such, his Legal Representatives viz; Smt. Shanti Devi (wife), Jyoti Sharma (daughter), Amit Sharma, Vishal Sharma and Rakesh Sharma (sons) have been taken on record by the order of this Court dated 01.09.2006. However, for the convenience, the deceased petitioner shall, hereinafter, be referred as petitioner.
3. The petitioner entered the services of the Railways in the year 1961 as Apprentice Fireman Grade `A. While he was working as a passenger train driver in Loco Shed, Lalgarh, his services were terminated with effect from 02.03.1981 for participating in the strike. The order of termination was set aside by the order of the Tribunal dated 04.09.1992. Thus, he was reinstated by order dated 06.07.1993. He was extended all the service benefits except LAP/HAP for the period he remained out of service. He stood superannuated on 29.02.2004. He made representations for the benefit LAP/HAP of the period during which he remained out of job, to be credited/granted to him. Thus, he filed the original application before the Tribunal in the year 2005.
4. The respondent in its reply inter alia took a plea of the original application being barred by limitation. Petitioner filed an application under Section 21(3) of The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, hereinafter referred-to as “the Act” for condonation of delay on the ground that the matter remained pending with the respondent authorities. The Tribunal refused to condone the delay and, as such, dismissed the original application by the impugned order being barred by limitation.
5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the petition and annexures thereto. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has made two-fold submissions. At the first instance, it is submitted that as the pensionary benefits can be claimed only on attaining the age of superannuation, as such, the limitation was to be counted from the date of superannuation and not from the date of reinstatement. In alternate, it is submitted that as the matter remained pending with the respondent authority and repeatedly, the assurance was given that the matter is pending consideration, there was sufficient ground for condonation of delay. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the Railway Administration has supported the Judgment of the learned Tribunal.
6. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. We are of the view that the instant petition deserves to be allowed. It is true that Section 21 of the Act prohibits admission of an application made under Section 19, unless the same is moved within one year of the order. Sub-section (3) of Section 21 of the Act gives ample power to the Tribunal to condone the delay, if the applicant satisfies the Tribunal that he had sufficient cause for not making the application in time. However, it must be realized that there is no rule of law imposing an obligation on the Tribunal to dismiss the application on the ground of delay. The discretionary power is to be exercised more liberally in the facts and circumstances of the case. While attributing the negligence or inaction on the part of the petitioner, inaction on the part of the department must also be kept in mind.
7. From perusal of the pleadings, we find that the petitioner did not make complaint against any order but it was against inaction on the part of the respondent authorities. At this stage, it will be convenient to read Section 21 of the Act, which reads as under:
“21. Limitation.-(1) A Tribunal shall not admit an application,-
.(a) in a case where a final order such as is
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
