P KANDHASAMY Vs. SECRETARY, UNION OF INDIA; DIRECTOR OF POSTAL SERVICES; CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL; SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES; MANAGER, MAIL MOTOR SERVICE; REGISTRAR, CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the impugned order, dated 04.02.2015, passed in R.A.No.310/0003/2014, in O.A.No.637 of 2009, the present writ petition has been filed, to quash the same and consequently, direct the Director of Postal Services, Western Region, Coimbatore, 2nd respondent herein, to treat the petitioner, as having retired on attaining the age of superannuation in the normal course, on 03.01.2015 and to grant all other attendant benefits.

(2.) Facts, as deduced from the materials on record, are that the petitioner was a driver in postal department. In exercise of the powers, under Section 56(j)(ii) of the Fundamental Rules, the Director of Postal Service, Western Region, Coimbatore, 2nd respondent herein, has issued an order, dated 17.04.2009, by which, the petitioner has been compulsorily retired. He filed O.A.No.318 of 2008, challenging the said order. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record, vide order, dated 9th October, 2009, O.A.No.637 of 2009, has been dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed M.A.No.698 of 2013, for condoning the delay of 1414 days, in filing the review application.

(3.) According to the petitioner, delay was condoned and the review application, was heard by the Hon'ble Bench, comprising of Hon'ble Member (Judicial) and the Hon'ble Member (Administrative). Out of two, the Hon'ble Member (Judicial), allowed Review Application No.3/2014 and consequently, set aside the penalty of compulsory retirement. The Hon'ble Member (Administrative) disagreed. Then the matter was referred to the Hon'ble Chairman (Judicial). The matter was heard and thereafter, the views dismissing the Review Application, was concurred. However, while dismissing the Review Application on 04.02.2015, the Hon'ble Member (Judicial) has recorded a finding that the delay of 1414 days in filing the Review Application, was not satisfactorily explained and on that premise, dismissed the Review Application and condonation petition. According to learned counsel, there was no consideration to the merits of the Review Application.