NARESH KUMAR Vs. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 18.01.2012 passed in OA 879/2011 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, whereby the petitioner's said OA was dismissed on the ground of limitation.

(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 07.03.2008 passed by the Appellate Authority which had confirmed the order of dismissal dated 20.06.2003. The petitioner had initially challenged the order dated 07.03.2008 by filing an Original Application being OA 1397/2010 on 22.02.2010 which was 23 months after the date of the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority on 07.03.2008. That OA was withdrawn by the petitioner on 13.01.2011 with liberty to file a better OA. It is thereafter that the said OA 879/2011 was filed on 28.02.2011 which had been dismissed by virtue of the impugned order dated 18.01.2012 on the ground of limitation. Even if we do not count the gap between the withdrawal of the first OA and the filing of the OA No. 879/2011 and construe it to be as if OA was filed on 22.02.2010, there is yet a period of 23 months between the date of the appellate authority's order dated 07.03.2008 and the filing of the said OA. The OA ought to have been filed within 12 months as prescribed under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. In other words, it should have been filed by 06.03.2009. However, it was filed further 11 months later on 22.02.2010.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Lala Mata Din v. A. Narayanan: (1970) 2 SCR 90. However, there is an observation in that decision itself to the effect that there is no general proposition that mistake of counsel by itself is always a sufficient ground for condoning delay. It is always a question whether the mistake was bona fide or was merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose. In that case, the Supreme Court observed that there was nothing in the case to show that the error committed by the counsel was tainted by any mala fide motive.