CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH Reserved on: 08.04.2024 Pronounced on: 06.05.2024 MA No. 060/2395/2023 in &

OA No. 060/1079/2023 HON’BLE SH. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR MEMBER (J)

HON’BLE MRS. RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI, MEMBER (A)

Viresh Kumar Bhawra aged 59 years, son of Sh. Gopal Ram Bhawra, Residentof # 521, Sector 16, Chandigarh-160017.

…………………..Applicant (By Advocate: Sh. D.S. Patwalia, Sr. Advocate with Sh.

B.S. Patwalia)

Versus

1. Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi-110001 through its Secretary.

2. Union Public Service Commission, Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi-110069 through its Secretary.

3. State of Punjab, Department of Home Affairs and Justice, Punjab Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh through its Principal Secretary.

4. Sh. Gaurav Yadav, IPS, Special DGP Administration, Punjab Police Headquarters, Sector 9, Chandigarh- 160009 (Currently holding additional charge of DGP (HoPF).

(By Advocate: Sh. Sanjay Goyal, Sr. CGSC with Ms. Palak Taneja, Sh. Pankaj Khurana & Sh. Vikrant Sharma for respdt. No. 1 Sh. B.B. Sharma for respdt. No. 2 Sh. Gurminder Singh, AG Punjab with Sh. Gagneshwar Walia, Sh. Surya Kumar & Sh.

Ranjit Singh Kalra for respdt. No. 3 Sh. Rajiv Atma Ram, Sr. Advocate with Ms.

Shreya Kaushik for respdt. No. 4)

O R D E R

Per: SH. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR MEMBER (J):

MA No. 060/2395/2023 (Condonation of Delay)

1. This MA has been filed by the applicant seeking condonation of delay of 55 days in filing the Original Application.

2. It has been submitted by the applicant that the applicant approached his counsel in the second week of October, 2023 after arranging the relevant documents. The limitation period expired as most of the documents and orders were not in the public domain and it took time to arrange the same and secondly, the respondents kept falsely assuring the applicant that he would be posted as DGP (HoPF) and was intimated that the orders dated 02.09.2022 are in reconsideration.

3. It has been further submitted by the applicant that there is no delay as the applicant has a recurring cause of action as his appointment as DGP (HoPF) has to continue for a period of two years in view of The Punjab Police Act, 2007 as well as the directions in Prakash Singh and Others Vs. Union of India and Others reported as (2006) 8 SCC 1, yet as an abundant caution, the applicant moved the present Miscellaneous Application under Section 21(3) of the A.T. Act, 1985 praying for condonation of delay of 55 days in filing the present Original Application.

4. The respondent No. 1 i.e. Union of India has filed reply to this MA wherein it has been submitted by it that the false averment has been made in para 4 of the MA by the applicant that he is entitled for benefit of judgement rendered in the case of Prakash Singh and others (supra) and the benefit of the Punjab Police Act, 2007. It has been submitted by the replying respondent that on the one hand, the applicant is staking his claim to remain as DGP (HoPF) whereas on the other hand, the present MA is being filed seeking condonation of delay of 55 days in filing the Original Application.

5. It has been specifically submitted by the replying respondent that the above judgement nowhere deals with the issue of condonation of delay in approaching the Hon’ble Court particularly in the case of appointment on the highly sensitive post of Director General of Police.

6. It has further been submitted by the replying respondent that the explanation given in para No. 2 of the MA is no explanation in the eyes of law and the averments made in para No. 2 that the applicant approached his counsel in the second week of October, 2023 after arranging the relevant documents are vague.

7. The replying respondent has relied upon the judgement passed by the Apex Court in the matter of Ratan Chandra Samanta Vs. Union of India, 1990 SCR (3) 1 wherein the Apex Court while dealing with the question of delay and laches, has observed that “Delay itself deprives a person of his remedy avai