AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anil Kumar, J.—The Petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.04.2005 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, in O.A. No. 661/2004 titled as "Dr. Naresh Kumar Gupta v. Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, dismissing the petition whereby he had sought his tenure as a pool officer in the Scientist Pool be also reckoned towards service for granting pensionary and other retirement benefits.
On the documents produced before the Tribunal, it was inferred that the Petitioner had been intimated categorically and clearly in 1998/1999 that his request to compute the period as pool officer in Scientist Pool towards his service for granting pensionary and other retiral benefits had been declined and, therefore, the cause of action for filing the O.A. accrued to the Petitioner in 1998 and 1999.
The Tribunal held that the O.A. filed on 10.04.2004 is, therefore, apparently barred u/s 21 of the Act. Even no application for condonation of delay was filed.
The Tribunal has also held that it cannot exercise its power vested by Sub-Section 3 of Section 21 of the Act and cannot condone the delay. Even on merits, the Tribunal held that there were no sufficient grounds for condoning the delay as the only reason canvassed was that he was making repeated unsuccessful representations to the authorities. Relying on the decision in S.S. Rathore v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1989) 11 ATC 913 and other precedents it was held that the original application was filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed u/s 21 of the Act and no sufficient cause has been shown for condoning the delay and, thus, dismissed the original application.
No one is present on behalf of the Petitioner and his counsel. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed in default.