Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 9832
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Sudhi Ranjan Mishra, J, Pramod Kumar Das, A
Nabaghana Behera – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
OA No. 487 of 2018
For the applicant: Mr. P K Khuntia
For the respondents: Mr. A C Deo
The tribunal upheld that applications must be filed within prescribed limitation periods, emphasizing the significance of timely legal action in administrative appeals.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 21 - Limitation - Applicant sought differential financial benefits for notional promotions but was barred by limitation as he failed to approach the Tribunal within the prescribed period, invoking principles of delay and laches resulting in dismissal of the application. (Paras 6, 7)
(B) Promotion - Financial benefits - The tribunal noted the applicant had been granted notional promotions and benefits, yet was not provided financial benefits in time, which led to a significant delay in filing the application, thereby affecting his entitlement. (Paras 2, 3)
Facts of the case:
The applicant challenged the inaction of the respondents regarding financial benefits from dates of notional promotions after receiving prior promotions which were later canceled leading to his filing of an Original Application for relief.
Findings of Court:
The application was dismissed on grounds of limitation as the applicant did not file within the required timeframe, thereby losing the right to claim the benefits sought.
Issues: The court addressed whether the application was filed within the limitation period and the applicant's justification for the delay in filing his OA.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that an application under the Administrative Tribunals Act must be within the prescribed period or adequately justified for delay, emphasizing the importance of timely pursuit of claims.
Result: OA dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. notional promotions and benefits were challenged related to their timing and impact on claims. (Para 2 , 3 , 5) |
| 2. the tribunal emphasized the importance of approaching the court within limitation periods. (Para 7) |
……Respondents For the applicant : Mr. P K Khuntia, counsel For the respondents: Mr. A C Deo, counsel O R D E R Hon’ble Mr. Sudhi Ranjan Mishra, J.M.
Since none has been appearing on behalf of applicant and as per order dated 20.06.2018, the matter was taken up for Signed By:C SADISH final hearing as per Rule 15 & 16 o2f CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987.
2. The applicant challenging the inaction of the respondents in not granting him financial benefits from the dates of his notional promotion has filed this OA praying for following reliefs:
a) The Original Application be allowed directing the respondents to provide differential financial benefits with effect from the date of his notional promotions to different grades as has been provided to exactly similarly placed persons as per Annexure A/8 and A/9 within a stipulate period pursuance to Annexure A/15.
b) To grant of any other relief/reliefs the applicant is entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the case as inter alia averred by the applicant in the OA is that he had joined as DBW worker semi skilled under Respondent No. 3 on 20.09.1990 and the post was re-designated as Fitter General Semi Skilled on 13.12.1991. It is submitted that applicant was notionally promoted to Fitter General Skilled w.e.f. 27.07.1993 and to High Skilled w.e.f. 27.07.1996 vide order dated 09.07.2008. It is submitted that the said promotion order was cancelled vide order dated 20.03.2010 and applicant had filed OA No. 08.2011 Signed By:C SADISH which was allowed with direction to t3h e respondents to restore the position of the applicant as was granted to them by Factory order dated 09.07.2008 with consequential benefits. It is submitted that consequent to order of this Tribunal the applicant was sanctioned notional seniority and promotion to the Fitter General (SK) w.e.f. 27.07.1993 and to (HS) w.e.f. 27.07.1996. It is submitted that similarly placed persons approached this Tribunal in OA No. 610/2014 and relying upon the decision of ths Tribunal in OA No. 7 & 8 of 2011 the same was allowed and the applicant therein were allowed CM (II) and CM (I) w.e.f. 09.10.2002 and 28.04.2008 respectively with consequential financial benefits. It is submitted that applicant submitted representation dated 19.12.2017 praying to grant him consequential financial benefit. Hence the OA.
3. The respondents filed their counter wherein they have inter alia averred that the OA is barred by limitation and also non joinder of parties. It is submitted that as per order of this Tribunal the applicant was granted notional seniority and promotion in the Skilled Grade, Highly Skilled Grade and Master Craftsman Fitter General Trade with notional pay Signed By:C SADISH fixation benefit, MACP benefit, pen4 sion benefit and leave benefits. It is submitted that applicant was allowed actual financial benefit w.e.f. 30.08.2013 i.e. from the date of order passed on 30.08.2013 in OA No. 7 & 8 of 2011. It is submitted that the applicant could not get further promotion to the post of Chargeman(Mech) and JWM/Mechanical for want of vacancy and he retired from Govt. Service on 31.05.2015 while working as Fitter General (Master Craftsman). It is submitted that applicants in OA No. 610/2014 have also been extended similar benefits i.e. notional promotion from date of eligibility but actual financial benefits have been given from date of order of this Tribunal in OA No. 610/2014 i.e. 20.07.2016. It is submitted that the applicants in OA No. 610/2014 got further promotion since there was vacancy. Therefore they prayed for dismissal of the OA.
4. Heard learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records.
5. The applicant had approached this Tribunal in OA No. 8/2011 challenging cancella
