(Reserved on 19.05.2025)

Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.2671 of 2024 in Original Application bearing Diary No.3417 of 2024 Pronounced on this the 21st Day of May, 2025 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)

Hon’ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A)

Bhaskar Nath Tiwari, aged about 63 years, Son of Late Ram Udit Tiwari, Resident of 849B, Ramanand Nagar, Allahpur, Prayagraj.

………..Applicant By Advocate: Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla Versus

1. Union of India through the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Communication, Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001.

2. Director General, Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001.

3. Chief Post Master General, U.P. Circle, Lucknow-226001.

4. Post Master General, Prayagraj Region, Prayagraj.

5. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj-211001.

…Respondents By Advocate: Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan

ORDER

By Hon’ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A)

Heard learned counsel for the parties on M.A./2671/2024 (Delay Condonation Application).

2. Present Original Application has been filed seeking the following relief:

“(i) This Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 12.05.2011 passed by respondent no.5 so far as the case of applicant is concerned.

(ii) This Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to give order/direction for promotion of BCR to the applicant since 03.11.2007.

Digitally (iii) This Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondents to refix the pay, pension and pensionary benefits and provide arrears of the pay, pension and pensionary benefits along with interest @ 10% per annum from the date when it became due to the date of actual payment.

(iv) This Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to give direction to the respondents to comply with the order of this Hon’ble Court within a stipulated period of time which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(v) Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may be given in favour of the applicant.

(vi) Award the costs of the original application in favour of the applicant.”

3. To state briefly, the applicant herein is challenging the impugned order of respondent no.5 dated 12.05.2011 through which the applicant has been given MACP-II since 01.07.2010 whereas his promotion under BCR is stated to be due since 03.11.2007 on completing 26 years of service in the Postal Department.

4. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been undergoing a recurring pecuniary loss since 03.11.2007 up to his retirement on 03.11.2021 and even after his retirement the loss is continuing. The applicant also gave a representation on 29.02.2012 immediately after the cause of action arose but the respondent no.4 only responded after a long delay on 14.08.2020 and 06.02.2023 and respondent no.5 who issued the impugned order never responded at all. He argues that his case is covered under the judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M.R. Gupta vs. Union of India and others [1996 AIR 669] decided on 21.08.1995, and he also referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Tarsem Sing vs. UOI & Ors [AIRONLINE 2008 SC 68] decided on 13.08.2008. Thus, he prayed that since the cause of action is recurring in nature, the delay occurred in filing the O.A. may be condoned and the O.A.

may be deemed to have been filed within the limitation period.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant and argued that the present Digitally Original Application has been filed after an inordinate delay of 13 years and no reasonable explanation has been given by the applicant for delay in filing the present Original Application and as such the Original Application is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches.

6. We have considered the rival contentions of learned