##PAGE1##

OA No. 303/2013 1

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 303/2013

Order Reserved on: 23.01.2026

DATE OF ORDER: 30.01.2026

CORAM

HON’BLE MS. RANJANA SHAHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

HON'BLE MR. LOK RANJAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

Kamal Kumar Bakshi S/o Shri Madan Lal Chibbar, aged about

64 years mail/express Guard, Western Central Railway, Kota,

resident of 92, Janakpuri, Mala Road, Kota Junction-324002.

....Applicant

Shri Y.K. Sharma, counsel for the applicant.

VERSUS

1. Union of India through the General Manager, Western

Central Railway, Jabalpur (MP).

2. The Divisional Rail Manager, Western Central Railway,

Kota.

3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Western Central

Railway, Kota.

4. The Divisional Rail Manager (Estt.), Western Central

Railway, Kota.

.... Respondents

Shri V.D. Sharma, counsel for respondents

ORDER

Per: RANJANA SHAHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

The applicant filed the present Original Application in the

year 2013 and the same was dismissed by this Bench of the

Tribunal vide order dated 14.09.2020 on both grounds; being

NATHU LAL Digitally signed by NATHU LAL

KUMAWAT

KUMAWAT Reason: your signing reason here

Date: 2026.02.03 10:24:33+05'30'

OA No. 303/2013 2

barred by period of limitation as well as on merits. Aggrieved

with the same, the applicant approached the Hon’ble High

Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench by filing D.B. Civil Writ

Petition No. 323/2021 and the Hon’ble High Court of

Rajasthan vide order dated 02.04.2025 while setting aside the

order dated 14.09.2020 passed by this Tribunal; remitted

back the matter to this Tribunal to decide afresh by first

dealing with the issue of limitation. The Hon'ble High Court of

Rajasthan primarily considered and expressed its opinion that

it is impermissible to deal with the merits of the controversy

by having dismissed the O.A. on account of limitation. Their

Lordships have held as below (relevant paras): -

“7. The issue of jurisdiction and limitation are the threshold for

availing remedy before the forum. It is on assumption of the

jurisdiction and filing of the petition within prescribed limitation the

O.A. can be entertained and thereafter the matter can be considered

on merits.

8. The dismissal of the OA being time barred ousted the claim of the

petitioner at the first instance. In other words, the tribunal having

concluded that the OA cannot be entertained being barred by

limitation could not have assumed jurisdiction to decide the OA on

merits.

XXXXX

15. It is trite law that the limitation has to be dealt by the Court at

the first instance even in absence of objection raised by the other

side.

16. In the case in hand, the tribunal held that there was no prayer

for condonation and the application filed was beyond limitation

meaning thereby the application was not admitted by the tribunal. In

such senerio, there was no occasion for the tribunal to deal with

merits of the controversy.”

As such, the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan directed as

below: -

NATHU LAL Digitally signed by NATHU LAL

KUMAWAT

KUMAWAT Reason: your signing reason here

Date: 2026.02.03 10:24:33+05'30'

OA No. 303/2013 3

“17. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order is set aside

and the matter is remitted back to the tribunal to decide afresh by

first dealing with the issue of limitation. The writ petition is allowed.”

2. In the light of above, we will first examine the question

of limitation. The applicant is seeking second stagnation

increment w.e.f. 01.07.1985 as well as benefits under 3™

Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP). The applicant

retired in the month of January, 2009. The applicant was

granted increment on 1% January, 1986 following Rule 8 of

RBE No. 168/1986, which provides for additional increment in

cases where adhoc increment had already been given but the

applicant was not satisfied with it and claims second

stagnation increment w.e.f. 01.07.1985. For staking this

claim, he waited till the year 2012 when he first time

approached this Tribunal and filed earlier O.A. No. 836/2012,

which was withdr