ORDER

Per: SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J):

1. The applicant has preferred instant O.A under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking setting aside of impugned termination orders dated 31.05.2005 (Annexure A-1 and 11.12.2007 (Annexure A-2), whereby the services of applicant has been terminated.

2. The applicant has also preferred instant M.A seeking condonation of 2482 days in filing O.A No.1087/2022. The applicant submits that vide order dated 31.05.2005 (Annexure A-1), respondent No.3 terminated the services of the applicant due to reason that the contract stands terminated qua the retirement/relinquishment or change of the post of Presiding Officer on 31.12.2004. He approached this Tribunal by way of O.A 606/00034/2014 and vide order dated 16.01.2014 the respondents were directed to consider the representation of applicant. The applicant then kept visiting the respondents' office but no decision has been taken by the respondents.

3. The applicant further submits that the delay in filing the O.A is not intentional, but is for bonafide reasons and he will suffer irreparable loss and injustice, if the delay is not condoned, he prays to condone the delay of 2482 days in filing the O.A.

4. The applicant relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo-Moto Writ (Civil) No.3 of 2020 decided on 10.01.2022 whereby the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 has been excluded for the purpose of limitation due to covid pandemic. The applicant sent a representation dated 28.10.2021 to respondent No.3, but the same has not been decided.

5. Notice was issued to the respondents in M.A No.2078/2022.

6. The respondent No.2 on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed written statement objecting the contention of applicant seeking condonation of delay. The respondents submitted that the applicant had already approached this Tribunal by way of O.A 454/2007, which was disposed of vide order dated 25.11.2008. The applicant again preferred O.A No.34/2014 challenging the termination order dated 31.05.2005, which was disposed of as withdrawn on 16.01.2014 with direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the applicant and if on consideration, the applicant is found entitled to payment of more than what has already been paid, the same be disbursed to him within one month. The respondents submitted that the applicant has again after a period of more than 8 years sought quashment of impugned termination order dated 31.05.2005.

7. The respondent No.3 has also filed reply to M.A stating that the applicant has not explained the delay of each day in fiilng the instant O.A. The delay being unexplained cannot be condoned. The judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ (Civil) No.3/2020 is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The respondents have prayed for dismissal of O.A along with M.A seeking condonation of delay.

8. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the material available on record. By way of instant O.A the applicant has prayed for setting aside the impugned termination order dated 31.05.2005 and 11.12.2007. Further, the direction for disposal of representation dated 28.10.2021 (Annexure A-3) has also been prayed for.

9. The factual matrix of the case is that, the applicant was engaged as a driver and joined the service in the month of November 2001 in the office of respondent No.3. The applicant continued to work in the said capacity till 30.05.2005. However, respondent No.3 terminated the service of applicant vide order dated 31.05.2005 retrospectively with effect from 31.12.2004. Even the salary for the period of 31.12.2004 to 31.05.2005 was not paid. The applicant got served legal notice upon the respondents. The applicant approached this Tribunal by way of O.A No.454 of 2007, which was disposed of vide order dated 25.11.2008. However the respondent No.3 v