Ramesh Kumari v. Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench And Others

CWP-25209-2019 page: [1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. : 25209 of 2019(O&M) Date of decision : September 10, 2019 Ramesh Kumari

...Petitioner

Versus

Central Administrative Tribunal and others

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU

Present:

Mr.Gaurav Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

*** Harinder Singh Sidhu, J. :

1.

This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 01.08.2018 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, whereby Miscellaneous Application No.060/00383/2017 in Original Application No.060/000293/2016 for condonation of delay has been dismissed. Accordingly, the OA was also dismissed on the ground of limitation, delay and laches.

2.

The petitioner had filed the OA impugning the orders dated 18.09.2014, 18.11.2014 and 16.03.2015 whereby his request for preponement of his date of increment had been rejected. 3.

The petitioner had filed representations for claiming the benefit of officiating service rendered by him as Junior Accounts Officer for the period from 10.10.2000 to 18.06.2001 and that his pay be revised accordingly. The representations were dismissed on the ground of delay

CWP-25209-2019 page: [2] having been filed after a delay of 12 years.

4.

The Ld. Tribunal noticing that the representations were filed after a delay of 12 years and that the OA had been filed much after the retirement of the petitioner on 28.02.2015 and that there was no plausible justification given by the petitioner for the delay, dismissed the miscellaneous application for condonation of delay. It was held that the petitioner did not plead and prove sufficient grounds to condone the delay. 5.

Considering the long delay in filing the OA and there being no sufficient grounds to explain the delay we feel the Tribunal was justified in dismissing both the application for condonation of delay and consequently the OA as well.

6.

Accordingly this petition is dismissed.

( RAJIV SHARMA ) ( HARINDER SINGH SIDHU ) JUDGE JUDGE September 10, 2019 gian Whether Speaking / Reasoned Yes Whether Reportable Yes / No