High Court of DelhiW.P.(C)/13606/2018

Alok Agarwal v. Union Of India And ORS.

2019-11-21Hon'Ble Dr. Justice S.Muralidhar,Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Talwant Singh2 pages

$~23 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 13606/2018 ALOK AGARWAL ..... Petitioner Through Mr.K.P.Singh, Mr. Vishwajeet Singh and Mr. Rishabh Singh, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

..... Respondents Through Mr.Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC and Mr.Abhigyan Siddhant, Advocates for Respondent no.1 Mr. Digvijay Rai and Mr. Aman Yadav, Advocates for Respondents No.2 & 3/SAIL

CORAM:

JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH

O R D E R

% 21.11.2019

1. The short ground on which the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has dismissed the Petitioner‟s application MA No. 2471/2018 in OA No. 1928/2018 by the impugned order dated 18th September, 2018 is the failure to satisfactorily explain the inordinate delay of 1057 days in approaching it for relief.

2. The prayer in the main OA was for directions to the Respondents to grant House Rent Allowance (HRA), allegedly denied to the Petitioner for the period from 1st September, 2013 to 30th September, 2016. The challenge in the OA was to an order dated 18th December, 2013, whereby, while refusing the HRA for the aforementioned period, directions were issued to recover the HRA already paid to the Petitioner with effect from September, 2013.

3. The explanation offered by the Petitioner was two-fold. One was that he had made several representations in the years 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 repeatedly to the authorities requesting them to grant HRA. The second explanation was that he was suffering from Chikungunya in September, 2016 and took nine months to recover. He further stated that he was a patient of „Hiatus Hernia‟ "since February, 2018." He took voluntary retirement on 30th September, 2017 itself.

4. Even going by the above explanations, the CAT found that for the period between 2016 and 2018 there was no valid explanation for the delay. Indeed, this Court finds no explanation forthcoming for the aforementioned period which forms part of the 1057 days of delay.

5. In that view of the matter, the Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the CAT.

6. The petition is accordingly dismissed.

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

TALWANT SINGH, J.

NOVEMBER 21, 2019/mw