Inordinate unexplained delay of 20 years bars condonation; doctrine of laches prevents revival of stale claims.

ORDER

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Ojha, Member (J)

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records.

2. Applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:

(i) to set aside the impugned order dated 20.10.1989 passed by the Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway and removal order dated 29.10.1986 passed by the Respondent No. 2, as contained in Annexure No. 3 & 6 respectively to this Original Application.

(ii) to direct the opposite parties to reinstate the services of the Applicant on the basis of seniority as per the order passed by Civil Court.

(iii) to pass such other which this Hon‟ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

(iv) award the cost of Original Application in favour of the Applicant.

3. It is the case of the applicant that applicant was the employee of the Respondent- Railway Department. Applicant joined the service on 1.1.1974. On 09.01.1986, disciplinary proceedings were instituted and chargesheet was served to the applicant. Applicant was removed from service on 29.10.1986. Applicant filed appeal against the order of removal from service. Appellate Authority without assigning any reason, dismissed the appeal illegally on 30.03.1987. Applicant filed review which also came to be rejected vide order dated 27.07.1987. Applicant filed an OA No. 1253 of 1987 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench which was allowed and impugned order dated 27.07.1987 was quashed. Tribunal directed the appellate authority to consider the case of the applicant in the light of observation made in the judgment passed in the aforesaid OA after giving opportunity of hearing to the applicant. On 20.10.1989, appellate authority again rejected the appeal.

Applicant filed a Writ Petition No. 2211 (M/S) of 2010, which was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to move before CAT for redressal of his grievance with an application for condonation of delay, which shall be considered by the Tribunal.

Applicant has filed an MA for condonation of delay alongwith O.A.

4. Respondents by filing counter affidavit alongwith their objections against delay condonation application have, interalia, stated that OA is barred by limitation. It has been further pleaded that applicant has filed the present case challenging the orders dated 29.10.1986 and 20.10.1989, which is barred by limitation and no satisfactory explanation has been given. If the order dated 20.10.1989 was illegal then applicant was free to challenge the same at that point of time but he did nothing. He challenged the impugned order for the first time by filing the writ before the Hon‟ble High Court in the year 2010. The Hon‟ble High Court never condoned the delay and simply directed to prefer the application for condonation of delay which has been directed to be considered. Further pleaded that applicant did not explain the delay of about 21 years and he wants to get the delay condoned under the strength of the order passed by Hon‟ble High Court, hence, this OA is liable to be rejected at this stage with heavy cost.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that impugned order dated 20.10.1989 is erroneous and illegal, hence, deserves to be quashed.

Further submitted that alleged delay in filing of the OA is neither deliberate nor intentional; hence, delay should also be condoned.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents strongly opposed the aforesaid submissions and argued that matter is highly time barred and applicant has not explained about 20 years delay. This litigation needs to be nipped in the bud.

7. In the case of Chennai Metropolitan water supply and Sewerage Board and others Vs. T.T