O R D E R

By Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (Judicial)

Shri Sunil, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Bablu Singh, learned counsel for the respondents are present.

2. By this original application, the applicants seek the following reliefs :-

“ (i) A direction may be issued to the concerned respondents that the service book of the father of the applicant may be corrected showing the date of entry in the service of the department in the year 1951.

(ii) Any other relief , which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of present case.

(iii) Award cost of the original application in favour of applicants.”

3. Heard on Delay Condonation Application No.724 of 2024 and objection to the delay condonation application No.1970 of 2024.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants referring to the relief clause argued that prayer made in the OA in respect of Relief No.2,3,4 and 5 have been deleted. Thus, there remain only relief No.1 regarding updating the service book of the deceased employee. It was further argued that applicants have earlier approached before the Tribunal through OA No.1352 of 2004, which was decided on 13.04.2011 with following directions :-

“16. In view of the above, the OA succeeds. Penalty orders and revisional orders impugned herein are quashed and set aside. It is declared that the said Babu Nandan would be deemed to have served the department till the date he would have attained his superannuation. His entitlement to pension and family pension would thus, remain intact. Respondents shall calculate the last pay drawn on the basis of his pay scale and the pay drawn until his removal from service duly incremented by the annual increment and the last pay would form the basis for calculation of his terminal benefits and the extent of pension and family pension. The pension and other terminal benefits would be disbursed in accordance with law to the legal heirs as per the service book and as per succession certificate (if necessary).

Family pension would also be afforded in accordance with law.”

5. Referring to the aforesaid fact, learned counsel for the applicants states that applicants have made a prayer for updating the Service Book in compliance of the direction given in the aforesaid OA but till date no order has been passed nor the Service Book of the deceased employee has been updated. Referring to the facts disclosed in the delay condonation application, it was argued that delay occurred in filing the OA is not intentional, thus, delay condonation application be allowed. The OA be deemed to have been filed within the limitation period.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents referring to the objection filed in this OA argued that the deceased employee retired in the year 1989. It is a very old matter. The reasons assigned for explaining the delay occurred in filing the OA are not sufficient.

7. I have considered the rival submissions and gone through the entire record.

8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay condonation application is liable to be allowed as penalty imposed upon the deceased employee was set-aside vide judgment/order dated 13.04.2011 passed in OA No.1352 of 2004 with specific direction to extend the benefit of pension and other terminal benefits in favour of the legal heirs as per the service book and as per succession certificate. Thus, the delay condonation application is allowed. The delay occurred in filing the OA is hereby condoned. The OA is deemed to have been filed within the limitation period.

Registry is directed to allot the regular number in this case.

9. Heard on MA No.4169 of 2023 (Joint Application).

Instant MA has been filed by the applicants under Rule 4 (5) of CAT (Procedure) Rule, 1987, for permitting them to pursue this OA jointly. The cause of action and the relief sought by the applicants appear to be similar. Accordingly, MA No. 4169/2023 is allowed. The applicants are permitted to pursue this matter jointly.

10.