AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
Per: Justice Sunil Thomas, Judicial Member -
The applicant has preferred this Miscellaneous Application seeking condonation of delay of 650 days in preferring this OA.
According to the applicant he is aggrieved by the refusal to reckon his past service with Arunachal Pradesh Police towards the qualifying service, for granting of financial upgradation. The requests made by the applicant was rejected by Annexures A12, A16 and A26 orders. He retired from service on 31.7.2022. Hence, he has approached this Tribunal seeking the reliefs. According to him, in spite of repeated requests the respondents have not acceded to his demand. Annexure A26 order is dated 24.2.2021. Accordingly, he should have approached the Tribunal on or before 20.8.2021. However, there has occurred a delay of 650 days in filing the Original Application. According to him when Annexure A26 order was issued the Country was under the surge of Covid-19 and he could not make arrangements to engage a lawyer. Since he was due to retire on 31.7.2022, apprehending repercussion if he had approached the Tribunal, he filed the present OA, after his retirement.
A detailed objection was filed by the respondents traversing the various allegations. Heard both sides and examined the records.
Essentially the applicant has explained the delay on the ground that Annexure A26 order was passed on 24.2.2021 and he could not file the OA within time, since Courts were closed due to Covid-19. He was afraid of approaching this Tribunal, since he was apprehensive of repercussions, as he was due to retire on 31.7.2022. Relying on Union of India & Ors. v. Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 648 he contended that it was a recurring cause of action and consequently there was no delay. However, as an abundant caution application for condonation of delay was filed.
It is pertinent to note that his request for reckoning the past service was rejected by Annexure A12 order dated 14.7.2015. Evidently, the cause of action arose on that day. He should have filed the application within the limitation period reckoned from that day. He is now explaining that he had thereafter filed two successive representations, which were rejected by Annexures A16 and A26 orders and delay is to be reckoned from the date of Annexure A26. Evidently, it is settled law that repeated filing of the representations will not save the limitation.
It is pertinent to note that reckoning the date of limitation from Annexure A12, he ought to have filed the application much before Covid-19. Hence, the limitation cannot be saved by this contention. Evidently, delay is much more than 650 days as claimed by the applicant.
There is also no justification in the submission of the applicant that he was apprehensive of repercussions if he would have approached the Court of law. This is also without any basis. In fact he has been seeking his relief by submitting various representations. Evidently, the delay has not been properly explained.
Notwithstanding the above facts we find that the applicant has a prima facie case and an arguable grievance. Whether he will be successful is a matter of detailed inquiry. However, having regard to this, we are inclined to condone the delay on the specific finding that if ultimately the OA is allowed, the relief will be confined to the period immediately prior to the filing of the OA. With that observation, MA No. 180/557/2023 is allowed.
Post the OA for filing reply by the respondents on 04.01.2024.