A. SRINIWAS RAO Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition arises out of an order dated 19.02.2004 of Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench (for short fee 'Tribunal') passed in Review Application No. 03 of 2004 for review of the order made by the Tribunal dated 30.09.1999 in Original Application No. 182 of 1999.

(2.) There was 4 years 3 months and 3 days delay in filing the Review Application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal not being satisfied with the explanation offered by the Petitioners, has not condoned the delay and by its order dated 19.02.2004, dismissed the Review Application holding that it was barred by limitation under Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987. Feeling aggrieved by the above order passed in the Review Application as well as the main order dated 30.09.1999 passed in O.A. No. 182 of 1999, the Petitioners have preferred this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) We have heard Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Shri Abhishek Sinha learned standing counsel for the Railways. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, would contend that the Tribunal is not justified in dismissing the Review Application, because, according to the learned Counsel, there was sufficient cause for the Petitioners not to file the Review Petition immediately after 30.09.1999. Learned Counsel would draw our attention to what is stated in para 2 of the application for condonation of delay in preferring the Review Application No. 03/2004 which is marked as Annexure P-12 at page 2 of the material papers along with LA. No. 8083 of 2006. Learned Counsel would contend that the order made by the Tribunal on 30.09.1999 holding that it has no jurisdiction is ex facie illegal and against the settled position in law. Learned Counsel would contend that in that view of the matter, the Tribunal ought not to have dismissed the Review Application No. 03 of 2004 being barred by limitation and ought to have reviewed order dated 30.09.1999 in the interest of justice and equity. Learned Counsel would highlight that similar was the circumstance of another person who is the Applicant in Original Application Nos. 27 of 1999 and 323 of 1999 who got the relief by virtue of the order made by the Tribunal itself vide order dated 06.09.2004, and therefore, the Railway Administration is not justified in practicing invidious discrimination between the two similarly circumstanced employees. On the other hand, Shri Abhishek Sinha, learned standing counsel for the Railways, would submit that there is absolutely no explanation much less sufficient explanation to condone the enormous delay of 4 years 3 months and 3 days. It was highlighted by the learned standing counsel for the Railway Administration that a subsequent order made by the Tribunal after a lapse of 4 years 3 months and 3 days in Original Application Nos. 27 of 1999 and 323 of 1999 would not be a factor which could constitute sufficient cause to condone the delay as held by the Courts in catena of decisions. Shri Sanjay Agrawal, in support of his submission, placed reliance on judgments of the Supreme Court in Inder Pal Yadav and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. : (1985) 2 SCC 648, Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors. v. Dharampal and Ors. : (1990) 4 SCC 13, Commissioner of Saks Tax J and K and Ors. v. Pine Chemicals Ltd. and Ors. : (1995) 1 SCC 58, Director Government of India v. General Secretary Central Government Small-Scale Industries Organization Employees Union and Anr. : (1998) 5 SCC 630, Union of India and Ors. v. Deepchand Pandey and Ors. : (1992) 4 SCC 432.