Central Administrative Tribunal

Principal Bench, New Delhi

M.A. No. 570/2020

OA No.29/2021

MA No.571/2020

MA No.45/2021

This the 5^th day of January, 2021

(Through Video Conferencing)

Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman

Hon’ble Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Member (A)

1. Civil Audit Association, Category-I

(Sr. Audit Officers and Audit Officers)

53, Arera Hills

Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh

Through M. Vinod Kumar,

S/o C.N.M. Panicker

R/o 88, Sector-B, Awadh Puri,

Piplani, Bhopal

Presently at New Delhi.

2. Prabhat Sharma

Senior Audit Officer, Group-A

Age 47 years

A-13A, Sarika Nagar, Thatipur

Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh.

3. R.K. Sharma

Senior Audit Officer, Group-A

Age 46 years

16, Gurunakpura, Near Capital Petrol Pump

Raisen Road, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.

.. Applicants

(Through Mr. Shrutanjaya Bhardwaj, Advocate)

Versus

1. Comptroller and Auditor General of India

9, Deen Dayal Upadhyay Marg

New Delhi-110124.

2. Accountant General (E&RSA), Madhya Pradesh

2

MA No. 570/2020

53, Area Hills, Hoshangabad Road

Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh-472011.

3. Accountant General (G&SSA), Madhya Pradesh

Audit Bhavan, Jhansi Road

Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh-474002.

4. Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions

Department of Personnel & Training

North Block, New Delhi-110001.

...

Respondents

(through Mr. Shreesh Chadha, Advocate)

ORDER (Oral)

Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman:

This application is filed with a prayer to condone the delay

of 770 days in filing the OA.

2. The 1^st applicant is an Association of Category 1 (Sr. Audit

Officers and Audit Officers) of the establishment of Comptroller

and Auditor General of India (CAG), the 1^st respondent herein.

The applicants 2 & 3 are said to be the employees. They intend

to file an OA claiming relief on 11 counts ranging from setting

aside the order dated 13.06.2011 to the one of directing the

respondents to grant the benefit of regular increment under

Rule 13 of CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008.

3. It is stated that a representation was made in relation to

the order dated 13.06.2011, dated 13.11.2018 and that the

same was rejected by the respondents on 29.01.2019. As

regards other relief also, the applicant referred to the

3

MA No. 570/2020

information secured through an application under Right to

Information Act, 2005. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. Bhattacharya vs. 2013 (12) SC

489. It is also stated that the cause of action is continuous in

nature and strictly speaking it cannot be said that there was

any delay at all.

4. The respondents filed a reply taking an objection to the

MA. It is stated that the OA is filed by an Association and the

cause of action cannot be said to have accrued to it in the

recent past. It is stated that the order of the year 2011 cannot

be challenged at this length of time, that too by an association.

They pleaded that mere filing a representation at a belated

stage does not save the limitation. Other various grounds urged

by the applicant are contradicted.

4. We heard Shri Shrutanjaya Bhardwaj, learned counsel for

the applicant.

5. The delay is of 773 days. However, the ultimate challenge

is to the orders dated 13.06.2011 and 22.09.2011. Nearly 9

years after the said orders were passed, the present OA and MA

are filed. The delay is almost 9 years. The applicants no doubt

have filed a representation on 13.11.2018 vis a vis the said

orders. However, it is fairly well settled that mere filing of a

4

MA No. 570/2020

representation at a belated stage does not save the limitation, if

it is otherwise barred.

6. It is true that the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that

the wrong fixation of the pay for an employee would lead to the

recurring cause of action and the same can be said to have

accrued every month, when the salary is paid on the basis of

wrong calculation. It was observ