The filing of a representation does not extend the limitation period prescribed under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The matter is listed for orders on non-compliance of office objections. The main objection raised is non-filing of application for condonation of delay despite there is delay in filing the OA.

2. At the outset, a question was posed to the learned Counsel for the applicant, Shri K.Shivakumar, whether time is required to cure the defects pointed out by the Registry i.e, regarding filing of miscellaneous application for condonation of delay, but the learned Counsel categorically stated that the office objection raised is frivolous vis-à-vis relief/s claimed in the OA and as such he is not seeking for any time to comply the same. In other words, according to the learned Counsel, there is absolutely no delay in filing the OA. Hence we proceeded to examine the said issue regarding the maintainability of the application qua the office objections raised.

S SARALADEVI CAT, BANGALORE

2025.06.16

3. The applicant has filed this original application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:

(i) Direct the respondent to consider the applicant’s representation dated 12.03.2025 (Annexure-A4) in light of the Railway Board instructions dated 23.04.2018 (Annexure A3) and merit of the case and pass necessary orders within the time frame fixed by this Hon’ble Tribunal and (ii) Grant any other relief or reliefs as deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity.”

4. Briefly stated the facts as narrated by the applicant in the OA are that the applicant belongs to Indian Railway Service of Mechanical Engineering (IRSME) 1997 Batch and presently working as General Manager (Operations) at Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited (BMRCL) on deputation. While working as Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer (Carriage & Wagon) at the Northeast Frontier Railway Headquarters from 16.06.2014 to 29.04.2016, his APAR for the period 2014-15 was graded as ‘Very S SARALADEVI CAT, BANGALORE

2025.06.16 Good’ by the Reporting Officer (Chief Rolling Stock Engineer/Chief Motive Power Engineer). However, it was downgraded to ‘Good’ by the Reviewing Officer (Chief Mechanical Engineer). The downgraded ‘Good’ grading was accepted by the Accepting Authority (General Manager, Northeast Frontier Railway). The representation dated 03.07.2018 submitted by the applicant before the then General Manager/ Northeast Frontier Railway requesting for re-consideration and restoration of the APAR grading from ‘Good’ to ‘Very Good’, was disposed of on 19.07.2018 with a remark, “representation is highly time barred and therefore cannot be considered”. Thereafter, the fresh representation dated 12.03.2025 has been submitted by the applicant placing reliance on the instructions dated 23.04.2018 issued by the Railway Board permitting for consideration of even time barred representation relating to APARs, but the same remains unconsidered. Hence this OA.

5. Learned Counsel for the applicant argued that due to the grading in the APAR 2014-15, the applicant was not considered for S SARALADEVI CAT, BANGALORE

2025.06.16 promotion to higher grade along with his batch mates (1997 batch) and he has been brought down to the seniority of 2002 batch. The one single down grading of APAR has significantly affected his seniority, delayed his promotion to Senior Administrative Grade and adversely affected the consideration of his case even for the Non-functional Higher Administrative Grade. Placing reliance on the Railway Board’s instructions dated 23.04.2018, learned Counsel submitted that the rejection of the representation dated 03.07.2018 as highly time barred sans considering the case on merit runs contrary to the Railway Board’s instructions dated 23.04.2018.

6. Learned Counsel further submitted that the long term implication based on later change in