Original Application No. 1446 of 2005. Case: 1. Anil Kumar Singh S/o Late Sita Ram Singh, 2. Rama Shankar Pathak S/o Late P. N. Pathak Vs 1. Union of India, Through the Secretary, Ministry of Railway's Board, New Delhi, 2. General Manager, Eastern Railway, Head Quarter Officer Fairle Place, Calcutta Now East Central Railways Hajipur, 3. Chief Personnel Officer, Eastern Railway Head Quarter Officer, Fairle Place, Calcutta now East Central Railway, Hajipur, 4. Chief Commercial Supdt. Eastern Railway Head Quarter Officer, fairle Place, Calcutta now East Central Railway, Hajipur, 5. Divisional Railway Manager Officer, Eastern Railway now East Central Railway, District Mughalsarai (U.P.). Central Administrative Tribunal

Case NumberOriginal Application No. 1446 of 2005
JudgesDr. K. B. S. Rajan (Judicial Member) & S. N. Shukla (Accountant Member)
IssueLimitation Act, 1963
Judgement DateMay 19, 2011
CourtCentral Administrative Tribunal

Judgment:

Dr. K. B. S. Rajan (Judicial Member)

  1. The applicants succeeding in this case is only on their crossing the following two hurdles:-

    (a) Limitation, for which the applicant had preferred an application for condonation of delay vide MA No. 4976 of 2009 (filed much after the filing of the O.A.).

    (b) Contention of the respondents that the applicants had failed in the screening test conducted as early as in 1984 and as such, they cannot be considered for regularization.

  2. As regards (a) above, the applicants contend that they could know about the Railway Board circular of 06-02-1990 (Annexure A-2) only in December, 2004 and the decision of the Apex court in the case of P.K. Srivastava (Annexure A-6) supporting the case of the applicants the applicants have approached the Tribunal. Thus, the delay is not intentional.

  3. The above MA. No. 4976 of 2009 in unequivocal term states that 'the applicant has come to know through the judgment of this Hon'ble Tribunal passed in O.A. No. 464 of 1997 on 22.12.2004 that a circular dated 6/2/1990 has already been issued by the Railway Board stating therein that the candidate may be re-engaged as Mobile Booking clerk as and when they approach the Railway Administration for their engagement.' The applicants have further stated in para 6 of the M.A. 'immediately thereafter on 22.12.2004 the applicants sent a representation along with the Railway Board circular dated 17.11.1991'."

  4. If the above fact is taken on its face value, perhaps, there could be some justification in their delay in filing the O.A. In other words, had the applicants got the knowledge of the existence of order dated 06-02-1990 only on 22-12-2004, there may be some justification in the delay in filing the O.A. But the OA gives an impression that the applicants had the knowledge about the said order of 06-02-1990 much earlier. First, they had never indicated in the OA that they came to know of the letter dated 06-02-1990 only on 22-12-2004. Nor is there any reference of this order in their communication dated 22-12-2004, though it talks of order dated 17-11-1991. More than that, in para 4.9 of the OA the applicants mentioned about the order dated 06-02-1990, and in para 4.10 they have stated that immediately after coming to know of the circular dated 6-2-1990 issued by the Railway Board the applicants approached Respondent No. 5 and requested him for giving them appointment/reinstatement and has also given them several...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT