SHIV MOHAN SINGH Vs. CENTRAL ADMN TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHIV Mohan Singh,who on attaining the age of superannuation,retired on 31. 7. 1997 claimed grant of overtime allowance for the period from 6. 12. 1990 to 10. 5. 1997 while he was working as Train Superintendent of Palace on wheels. He claimed to have over worked for 7700 hours and as per schedule of payment was entitled for payment of Rs. 3,50,908,90. The central Administrative Tribunal (in short `the Tribunal') vide impugned order dated 6. 6. 2003 dismissed claim of the petitioner being barred by time as also on merits. It is against this order passed by the Tribunal that the present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) BRIEFLY put, the case of the petitioner has been that he had worked on the train Palace on wheels from time to time for 7700 hours and as such, was entitled for payment of over-time allowance of Rs. 3,50,908,90. When for a period of about seven hours and as such, was entitled for payment of over-time allowance of Rs. 3,50,908,90. When for a period of about seven years, he was not given over time allowance, he made representation on 27. 2. 1997 i. e. about five months before the date of his retirement. He made two further representations dated 1. 3. 1997 and 21. 9. 1999 and yet, when the respondent authorities invoked no interest, he was constrained to file OA No. 79/2000 and the learned Tribunal wide order dated 10. 4. 2001 disposed of the same while directing the respondents to decide his representation by passing a reasoned and speaking order within two months from the date the petitioner was to make representation and to communicate the decision thereof to the petitioner within 15 days thereafter. The respondents,however, found no favour with the claim of the petitioner as his representation came to be rejected vide order dated 13. 6. 2001 (Anx. 7 ). It is against this order that challenge was made before the Tribunal, with the result already indicated above.

(3.) IN the context of the facts as fully detailed above, the question that arises for determination is as to whether by virtue of provisions contained in Sec. 20 and 21 of the Act. the O. A. for the claim, as mentioned above,was barred by limitation.