Patna High CourtCWJC/10744/2014dismissed

Manoj Kumar Pathak v. The Union Of India And ORS

2016-03-31Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah,Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10744 of 2014 =========================================================== Manoj Kumar Pathak son of Sarbajit Pathak resident of village - Dadar, P.S. - Goah, District - Aurangabad (Bihar).

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The Union of India through the General Manager, Ministry of Rail, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi.

2. The General Manager, Northeastern Frontier Railway (N.F. Railway), Maligaon.

3. The Chief Engineer, Northeastern Frontier Railway (N.F. Railway), Maligaon.

4. The Senior Divisional Personal Officer, Northeastern Frontier Railway (N.F. Railway), Katihar.

5. The Divisional Railway Manager, Northeastern Frontier Railway (N.F. Railway), Katihar.

6. The Divisional Railway Manager (Personnel), N.F. Railway, Katihar.

7. The Deputy Chief Engineer (Survey), Northeastern Frontier Railway (N.F. Railway), Katihar.

.... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance:

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Manoj Kumar with Mr. Raj Narayan Mishra, Advocates.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Atul Singh, Advocate.

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA) Date: 31-03-2016 The challenge in the present Writ Petition is to an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna on 06.02.2012 whereby an Original Application filed by the petitioner under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 was dismissed on the ground that it was barred by limitation.

The grievance of the applicant is in respect of screening test conducted on 20.09.1990. The applicant was not selected though the other

Patna High Court CWJC No.10744 of 2014 dt.31-03-2016 2/2 similarly situated casual labourers filed original application in the year 1997 which was allowed on 22.10.2001. The cause of action arose to the petitioner on 20.09.1990 when the screening test was held and the petitioner was not successful, therefore, the Original Application was rightly found to be hopelessly barred by limitation.

We find no reason to differ with the view taken by the Central Administrative Tribunal. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. (Hemant Gupta, J) (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J) Dilip/P.Kumar.