Applicant has filed the present Original Application making following prayers:- 1. To issue a writ order or direction commanding the respondents to consider the claim of the applicant for employment and include his name in selected list of post of Gangman and decide his representation within stipulated time.
2. to issue any other suitable order or direction in the facts and circumstances of the case, which this Honble Tribunal may deem fit and proper.
3. To award cost of the petition to the petitioner..
2 As stated by applicant in the Original Application, he was appointed as Gangman in Northern Railway, Bareilly in the year 1977 to 1989. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that he alongwith other daily wager employee was told by the Department that all Gangman working in Railway, who had completed 377 days service were regularized, but applicant is denied similar treatment. It is nowhere stated by the applicant that on what date, such Gangman were regularized. It is the case of the applicant that he last worked in Northern Railway as Gangman in 1989. The representation enclosed by him alongwith O.A. are dated 14.07.2010 and 15.7.2010. Cause of action, if any, had arisen to the applicant in the year 1989. At most cause of action could be said to have arisen in his favour if any of such casual labour, who had worked alongwith him during the period from 1977 to 1989 could be re-engaged and regularized. Regularization of Casual Labour, who could have continued in service from 1977 till his regularization in recent past could not be a cause of action for the applicant to claim parity. It is nowhere the case of the applicant that any casual labour, who worked alongwith him during 1977 to 1989 is reengaged and regularized during the last one and half year.
3. As is provided in Section 21 of Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, Tribunal shall not admit an application in 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 and in a case where an appeal or representation such as is mentioned in Clause (b) of sub section (2) of section 20 has been made and a period of six months had expired thereafter without such final order having been made, within one year from the date of expiry of the said period of six months. Said section 21 reads as under:- 21. Limitation- (1) A Tribunal shall not admit an application (a) in 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; (b) in a case where an appeal or representation such as is mentioned in Clause (b) of sub section (2) of section 20 has been made and a period of six months had expired thereafter without such final order having been made, within one year from the date of expiry of the said period of six months. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub section (1) where- (a) the grievance in respect of which an application is made had arisen by reason of any order made at any time during the period of three years immediately preceding the date on which the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunal becomes exercisable under this Act in respect of the matter to which such order relates; and (b) no proceedings for the redressal of such grievance had been commenced before the said date before any High Court. The application shall be entertained by the Tribunal, if it is made within the period referred to in clause (a) or, as the case may be, clause (b), of sub section (1) of within a period of six months from the date, whichever period expires later. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) an application may be admitted after the period of one year specified in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub section (1) or, as the case may be, the period of six months specified in sub section (2), if the applicant satisfies the Tribunal that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period
4. Applicant would contend that since he made representation in the year 2010, O.A. being filed within one year from the expiry of date of such representation and his O.A. would be treated to have filed within a period of limitation. However, in the case of S.S. Rathore Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1990 SC 10, while considering the question of limitation observed as under:- We are of the view that the cause of action shall be taken to arise not from the date of the original adverse order but on the date when the order of the higher authority where a statutory remedy is provided entertaining the appeal or representation is made and where no such order is made though the remedy has been availed of, a six months period from the date of preferring of the appeal or making of the representation shall be taken to be the date when cause of action shall be taken to have first arisen. We, however, make it clear that this principle may not be applicable when the remedy availed of has not been provided by law. Repeated unsuccessful representation not provided by law are not governed by this principle.
5. In the present case after his disengagement in 1989, the applicant did not make any representation till 2010. Thus the representation made by him in 2010 would neither give rise to fresh cause of action for the applicant to file the present O.A. nor same can extend the period of limitation prescribed in section 21 of A.T Act 1985 i.e. 1 year.
6. In the case of Ratan Chandra Samanta Vs. Union of India JT 1993 (3) SC 418, the Honble Supreme while dealing with delay and latches viewed as under:- A writ is issued by this Court, in favour of a person who has some right and not for sake of roving inquiry leaving scope of maneuvering. Delay itself deprives a person of his remedy available in law. In absence of any fresh cause of action or any legislation a person who has lost his remedy by lapse of time loses his right as well.
7. In the case of State of Karnataka Vs. S.M Kotrayya, 1996 (6) SCC 267, Honble Supreme Court has held that some teachers had availed of LTC concession during the year 1981-82 but it was found that they had not utilized the amount and therefore, recovery came to be made in the year 1984-86. Some of the teachers filed applications in the Tribunal questioning the power of the Government to recover the same. The Tribunal in 1989 allowed similar claims and had held that the appellant Govt. could not recover the same from the respondents. On coming to know of it, other teachers filed applications in August, 1989 before the Tribunal with an application to condone the delay. Holding that the O.A was barred by limitation, the Supreme Court observed that the mere fact that the applicants filed belated applications immediately after coming to know that in similar claims relief had been granted by the Tribunal, was not a proper explanation to justify the condonation of delay. Referring to the provisions of Section 21 (1) and Section 21 (2) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, the Supreme Court held that it is not only necessary that the respondents should give explanation for the delay which occasioned for the period mentioned in Sub section 2 of section 21 but they should give the explanation for the delay which occasioned after the expiry of the aforesaid respective period applicable to the appropriate case and the Tribunal should be required to satisfy itself whether the explanation offered was proper explanation. It was observed by the Supreme Court that in the particular case the explanation offered was that they came to know of the relief granted by the Tribunal in August, 1989 and that they filed the petition immediately thereafter. This is not the proper explanation at all. What was required of them to explain under sub section (1) and (2) was as to why they could not avail of the remedy of redressal of their grievances before the expiry of the period prescribed under Sub Section (1) or (2). Such explanation was not given.
8. I may also note that the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Sharma Vs. Udham Singh Kamal and Ors. (1999) 8 SCC 304 has laid down that O.A. barred by limitation could not be disposed of on merit in view of the statutory provisions contained in section 21 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. In that case also a declaration was made by the application in the O.A that the application was within the limitation prescribed in Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and considering the same, the Supreme Court said that this averment clearly indicates that the first respondents was all long asserting that he had filed the O.A within limitation but it was not so.
9. In view of aforementioned factual and legal position, the O.A. is dismissed on the ground of limitation. However, if in future any casual labour, who worked during the period of 1977 to 1989 is found to be reengaged, the applicant may have fresh cause of action to avail the remedy in accordance with law. No costs. Member (J) Manish/-