N. PRASANNA LAKSHMI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the writ petitioner herein has filed this writ petition calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned order dtd. 22/1/2020 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Circuit Sitting at Bilaspur, by which petitioner's application for condonation of delay in filing application under Sec. 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (herein after referred as "the Act, 1985") has been rejected and consequently, the original application has also been dismissed.

(2.) Petitioner's husband late Shri N. Laxman Rao was working with respondent ' Railway as a Gate Keeper. He was subjected to disciplinary proceeding for his misconduct, whereas, in disciplinary proceedings, by order dtd. 30/11/2010 he was inflicted with the penalty of compulsory retirement and ultimately by order dtd. 10/12/2010 he was compulsorily retired. Against the order of compulsory retirement he filed the appeal before the Appellate Authority and the same was dismissed by order dtd. 28/6/2011 against which he preferred the revision petition before the Revisional Authority and before his revision could be disposed off finally, he left for heavenly abode on 13/9/2011. Thereafter, on 9/11/2011 his revision was dismissed by the Revisional Authority and the Revisional Authority directed vide Annexure P/4 that revisional order be informed to the family members of the deceased employee. In the meanwhile, the petitioner herein (wife of railway servant) left Chhattisgarh and started living with her parents at Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh with two minor sons finding financial crisis and having no accommodation of her own in Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh and she could not be served with the revisional order. In the month of February, 2018 she came back to Raipur, Chhattisgarh and collected some documents and made representation to the Divisional Railway Manager (for short 'DRM'), Raipur (Annexure P/6) on 17/2/2018 and claimed all retiral benefits which was rejected by DRM by order dtd. 14/6/2018 (Annexure P/7) and thereafter, petitioner preferred Original Application with application for condonation of delay under Sec. 21(3) of the Act, 1985 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which was rejected by the impugned order relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and Ors. vs. M.K. Sarkar (2010) 2 SCC 59 holding that the dead and stale claim cannot be entertained by the Tribunals.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved against the order of Tribunal, the petitioner herein filed this writ petition stating that tenor and texture of order dtd. 9/11/2011, she was never served with the revisional order, anyhow she came back to Bilaspur and filed the application and explained the delay which the Tribunal did not consider it favourably and rejected the application by recording a finding perverse to the record.