MA No. 870 of 2009, MA No. 871 of 2009 in OA-880 of 1999. Case: 1. Ashok, 2. Minter Pal, 3. Dharmender, 4. Ravinder, 5. Joginder Vs 1. Union of India, through its Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, 2. Director, National Zooligical Park. Central Administrative Tribunal
|Case Number:||MA No. 870 of 2009, MA No. 871 of 2009 in OA-880 of 1999|
|Party Name:||1. Ashok, 2. Minter Pal, 3. Dharmender, 4. Ravinder, 5. Joginder Vs 1. Union of India, through its Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, 2. Director, National Zooligical Park|
|Counsel:||Anu Mehta, A. K. Bhardwaj|
|Judges:||Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma (Judicial Member)|
|Issue:||Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5; Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 27|
|Judgement Date:||January 14, 2010|
|Court:||Central Administrative Tribunal|
Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma (Judicial Member), (Principal Bench, New Delhi)
The applicants have filed this Misc. application seeking compliance of Tribunal''s order dated 18.10.2000 in OA- 880/1999.
The operative part of the order dated 18.10.2000 in OA- 880/1999 reads as follows:-
8. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case, the OA is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to engage the applicants on casual basis so long there is work and they shall not be replaced by persons with lesser length of service or outsiders including contractors. Respondents are also directed to consider the applicants for grant of temporary status as and when they complete 240 days in a year and thereafter consider them for regularization in accordance with the rules and instructions on the subject. No costs.
Under section 24, read with Section 27 of AT Act, 1985 an application for execution of Tribunal''s order is required to be filed within one year from the date of its final. The present Misc. application having been filed after about 10 years of the passing of the order in the OA is time barred and is not maintainable. The Misc. Application was not accompanied with an application for condonation of delay. However, during the course of hearing an application under section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay has been filed wherein besides stating the action taken by the applicants for execution of this Tribunal''s order, it has, inter alia, been stated that the Counsel Shri B.B.Rawal, engaged by the applicants in 2005-06 when the applicants were removed from service, could not pursue the matter on account of his ill-health and subsequently he expired in April,2008.
Having given my careful consideration, I do not find sufficient grounds for which the applicant could not approach this Tribunal in time and as such there is no warrant for condonation of delay in filing the present Misc. Application.
Otherwise on merits also, the applicants have not made out any case...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL