The matter has been coming up before the Tribunal for admission since 13.01.2017. On 13.01.2017 considering the fact that the learned counsel for the applicant has sent a sick note the matter was adjourned to 18.01.2017.
2. On 18.01.2017 none appeared for the applicant. However, to give an opportunity to the learned counsel for the applicant, the matter was adjourned to 23.01.2017.
3. On 23.01.2017 also none appeared for the applicant. Hence, the following order was passed: None for the applicant. The matter was adjourned twice enabling the applicant to make his submission. In spite of the same, learned counsel for the applicant is not present. However, with a view to give last and final opportunity to the learned counsel for the applicant, the matter is adjourned to 30-1-2017. It is made clear that if the learned counsel for the applicant fails to appear before the Tribunal on the next date of hearing and make his submission, appropriate orders will be passed by exercising the powers conferred upon the Tribunal under Rule 15(1) of the CAT (Procedures) Rules, 1987. Post the matter on 30-1-2017.
4. In terms of the above order dated 23.01.2017, the matter was listed on 30.01.2017 and at the request of Shri M.S.Trivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, the matter was adjourned to 13.02.2017 i.e. today.
5. Heard Shri H.B.Desai, learned counsel for the applicant. Perused the pleadings and documents annexed thereto.
6. The grievance of the applicant in this O.A. against the respondents relates to the order bearing No.AT/SDE-WIf/70/Depe./PHR-442/2007-08/33 dated 06.10.2016 vide Annexure A/1 by which the applicant was intimated that his representation dated 12.09.2016 was reexamined by the competent authority and that the same has been rejected. Being aggrieved of the said order, the applicant presented the instant O.A. with a prayer to quash and set aside the same and for a direction to the respondents to consider his case for appointment on compassionate grounds.
7. The facts stated by the applicant in support of his grievance and claim are that he is the son of late Shri Harshinh Rajput who was working as Telephone Mechanic, died on 14.09.2006 while in service. After death of his father, in the year 2008 he submitted an application dated 01.01.2008 with a request to provide him appointment on compassionate grounds, but the same was turned down by the respondents by issuing the order bearing No.CGA/AM/2009/25/8 dated 28.06.2012 vide Annexure A/2 which reads as under: Sub: CGA case of Shri Prashantsinh S/O late Shri H.P.Rajput, ex.TM. Ref: Your application dated: 01-01-2008. Sir, I am directed to refer to your application referred above. Your case for compassionate ground appointment has been examined in detail with the following facts. The ex-official expired on 14-09-2006 at the age of 50 years survived by his wife & four sons. The family is living in a rented house. The family pension is Rs.3250/- + IDA and other terminal benefits were Rs.5,76,727. The son has applied for CGA vide application dated: 01-01-2008. Keeping in view the assets, limited liabilities and overall assessment of the financial condition of the family of the deceased official, the competent authority did not consider the family to be living in penury and therefore rejected the request under provisions of the scheme {in accordance with Instructions of Department of Personnel & Training laid down in OM No: 14014/6/94-Estt(D) dated: 09-10-1998}. Sd/- (A.C.Shah) Asstt. General Manager (Estt.) Tele. No:079-26481393.
8. Thereafter, he submitted representation dated 12.09.2012 vide Annexure A/3 with a request to reconsider his case which also came to be turned down by issuing the order bearing No.AT/WL-70/DEPE/PHR/2012-13/19 dated 11.06.2013 vide Annexure A/4.
9. Thereafter, he submitted one more representation dated 12.09.2016 to the Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle to reconsider his request which also came to be rejected by issuing the order dated 06.10.2016 vide Annexure A/1. It reads as under: SUB: CGA Case of Shri. Prashantsingh H. Rajput S/o Late Shri H.P.Rajput, Ex. T.M, St No.4830, expired on dated: 19/02/2006 REF: NO.CGA/AM/2009/25/8 dated: 28/06/2012 With reference to the above mentioned subject, your representation application dated: 12/09/2016, it is to intimate that your case has been re-examined by competent authority and representation has been rejected. Sd/- AGM (General) ATD, Ahmedabad Being aggrieved of the above, the applicant presented the instant O.A. with a prayer to quash and set aside the same and for a direction to reconsider his case for appointment on compassionate grounds.
10. Admittedly, his application dated 01.01.2008 was rejected by the order dated 28.06.2012 vide Annexure A/2. The applicant having received the said order dated 28.06.2012 vide Annexure A/2 instead of approaching the Tribunal was in the habit of submitting representations after representations. The applicant having suffered an order dated 28.06.2012 vide Annexure A/2, ought to have challenged the same if he has any grievance. Instead, ignoring the fact that his claim was rejected, he went on making representations one after another which ultimately resulted in issuing the impugned order dated 06.10.2016 vide Annexure A/1. It is settled law that the object of providing appointment on compassionate grounds is to mitigate the sudden financial crises of the family of the deceased government servant. Admittedly, the father of the applicant died on 14.09.2006 and thus, as of now a period of 10 years has already expired. The cause of action for the applicant to challenge the decision of the respondents had arisen on the date of receipt of the order bearing No.CGA/AM2009/25/8 dated 28.06.2012. As such, if the applicant had any grievance against the respondents for not providing appointment on compassionate grounds, he ought to have challenged the same immediately after receipt of the order dated 28.06.2012 vide Annexure A/2. On the other hand, having kept quiet for about a period of four years, he submitted representation dated 12.09.2016 vide Annexure A/5 pursuant to which the impugned order came to be passed. It is settled law that making repeated representations does not save the period of limitation. In this regard, I may usefully refer to the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Dass v. Union of India & Ors. AIR 2007 SC 1330. The Honble Supreme Court observed and held as under: 9. It has been pointed out by this Court in a number of cases that representations would not be adequate explanation to take care of delay. This was first stated in K.V.Raja Lakshmiah v. State of Mysore (AIR 1967 SC 993). There is a limit to the time which can be considered reasonable for making representations and if the Government had turned down one representation the making of another representation on similar lines will not explain the delay. In State of Orissa v. Sri Pyarimohan Samantaray, (AIR 1976 SC 2617) making of repeated representations was not regarded as satisfactory explanation of the delay. In that case the petition had been dismissed for delay alone. (See State of Orissa v. Arun Kumar, AIR 1976 SC 1639 also).
11. Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 prescribes the time limit within which an application has to be made. In terms of the same, the applicant ought to have presented the O.A. well within one year from the date of receipt of the order dated 28.06.2012 vide Annexure A/2. No reason whatsoever has been forthcoming for not making the O.A. well within the time allowed by making an application under Section 21(3) of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 so as to enable this Tribunal to condone the delay in not making the O.A. well within the time allowed under Section 21(1)(a). The O.A. is not accompanied by any M.A. under Section 21(3) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. In spite of granting several adjournments, the applicant did not choose to file M.A. under Section 21(3) of the Act.
12. Section 21(1)(a) of the Administrative Tribunal Act mandates that the Tribunal shall not admit an application, unless the application is made within one year from the date on which such final order has been made. It reads as under: 21. Limitation - (1) A Tribunal shall not admit an application, - (a) in a case where a final order such as is mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 20 has been made in connection with the grievance unless the application is made, within one year from the date on which such final order has been made In view of the above mandate of Section 21(1)(a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, the O.A. is liable to be rejected, since the same is not accompanied by an M.A. with a prayer to condone the delay. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
13. However, it is made clear that the dismissal of the O.A. will not come in the way of the applicant to approach the Tribunal and he is at his liberty to do so as may be advised in respect of his claim for appointment on compassionate grounds. It is further made clear that this order shall not be construed that any period of delay to challenge the order dated 28.06.2012 (Annexure A/2) is condoned.
14. There shall be no order as to costs. (M.Nagarajan) Judicial Member