Repeated representations do not extend limitation periods; applicants must provide sufficient cause for delays in applications.

ORDER

PER: JUSTICE B.K. SHRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (J)

1. This order shall govern the disposal of M.A No.696 of 2024 filed for condonation of delay in filing the Original Application No.684 of 2024 which was filed before this Tribunal on 04.12.2024

2. It is stated by the applicant in the aforesaid M.A., that respondent No.2 issued the Office Order dated 01.07.2023 and in reference to the aforesaid order, the applicant submitted an application for compassionate appointment for her Daughter on the same day on 01.07.2023, but no decision has been taken in this regard. The applicant visited the Advocate’s office on 12.10.2024. Therefore, if there is some delay, that should be condoned.

3. On the other hand, the respondents opposed the aforesaid application. The respondents have also filed an objection to the M.A and counter reply to the O.A., and submitted that various representations were submitted by the applicant but the limitation will be counted from the date of first application / representation i.e. 15.10.2008. If the representation was not decided within six months, then the Original Application should be filed within one year from the date of completion of six months, but this O.A has been filed after several years. Application did not mention any sufficient cause for condonation of the long period from the year 2009 to 04.12.2024.

4. To decide this application, the pleadings of the applicant are also relevant. It appears that the applicant concealed various facts about her representations. In paragraph 4(2), she stated that her husband died on 17.10.2007, and she submitted her representation for granting compassionate appointment. In the entire pleadings, she did not mention any date of representation, even the copy of the aforesaid representation has not been filed. Again, in the entire pleadings she did not disclose facts about further representations

5. The respondents, in their reply statement, mentioned the correct position of the facts. As per the aforesaid reply:-

(i) the applicant, Smt. Latha. K.N submitted her first representation on 15.10.2008 for compassionate appointment to herself. Because only one vacancy was available, and the Committee considered the name of the applicant along with four other persons, in the meeting dated 23.11.2012, the applicant was not found eligible.

(ii) The applicant again after about four years from the date of first representation, submitted second representation on 24.01.2012 to grant of compassionate appointment to her “Son” not for herself. The aforesaid representation was also dismissed because only vacancy which was available was already finalized on 23.01.2012.

(iii) The third representation was submitted on 12.05.2015 for compassionate appointment to her “Son”. The said representation was also filed after about three years from the 2^nd representation and after 7 years from the first representation

(iv) Thereafter, the applicant filed the fourth representation on 05.07.2023 seeking compassionate appointment to her married daughter named Smt. Nischita.

6. Without pleading, at the time of argument, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant filed various representations from time to time, but no decision was taken. Therefore, the delay should be condoned.

7. The respondents opposed the aforesaid contention and submit that the applicant did not disclose the facts about various representations and did not disclose any reason for condonation of delay in the application.

8.Section 21ofThe Administrative Tribunals Act reads as under:

“21. Limitation.—

(1) A Tribunal shal