AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
Heard Shri Ashutosh Maurya, holding brief of Shri Harindra Prasad, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records.
Instant M.A. No.444/2024 has been filed by applicant for condoning the delay in filing the original application, which is registered as Diary No.524/2024.
Shri Ashutosh Maurya, holding brief of Shri Harindra Prasad, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking a direction to the respondents to extend the benefits granted to the applicants in O.A. No. 3204/2011 (Sh. Madhusudan & Ors. Vs. UOI), decided by the CAT, Principal Bench, vide order dated 26.10.2015, as well as to the applicants in O.A. No. 995/2021 (Vijay Kumar Gupta & Ors. Vs. UOI), decided by the CAT, Allahabad Bench, vide order dated 31.10.2023. He further submitted that the applicant has prayed for a direction to the respondents to grant him financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme in the Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- upon completion of 20 years of regular service, with effect from the respective due dates, along with interest and all consequential benefits.
He further submitted that the applicant could not file the Original Application within the prescribed period as he had no knowledge about the order passed by the CAT, Principal Bench in aforesaid case. The applicant came to know about the order dated 31.10.2023 passed in O.A. No. 995/2021 passed by this Tribunal and, thereafter, made an enquiry in his office in the month of January, 2024 regarding his entitlement to the Grade Pay. At that time, he was informed that he had been drawing Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- at the time of his retirement. It was further submitted that the applicant is suffering continuous monetary loss every month in his pension and is also deprived of the arrears of salary.
Learned counsel further submitted that the delay in filing the present Original Application, registered as Diary No. 524/2024, is neither wilful nor deliberate, but has occurred due to the applicant's lack of knowledge regarding his entitlement to Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/-. He came to know about his entitlement only in the month of January, 2024. Since a similar matter has already been allowed by the CAT, Allahabad Bench, vide its order dated 31.10.2023 passed in O.A. No. 995/2021, the applicant, upon acquiring knowledge of the said order and his entitlement, approached this Tribunal. Hence, the delay in filing the instant Original Application has occurred for the aforesaid bona-fide reasons.
Under such circumstances, learned counsel prayed that delay, if any, in filing the present original application may be condoned.
Per contra, Mr. Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant is completely failed to explain the delay and after 13 years from retirement, he suddenly woke up and filed the present Original Application along with delay condonation application. The applicant accepted all the retiral benefits at the time of his retirement and remained silent for about 13 years. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh & Others v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Others, (2015) 1 SCC 347, he is not entitled to claim the benefit of the judgments relied upon by him after such an inordinate delay. It is well settled that any person, who is sitting over his right and grievances for a long span of time cannot liable to be get any relief from the court on the ground that a similar controversy decided.
He further submitted that as per Section 21 of Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, the limitation for filing the O.A. is one year from the date of when cause of action arises and as such, this delay condontation application is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay itself. He further submitted that applicants have not explained cogent reasons for condonation of delay in the delay condonation application along with affidavit in support thereof.
Having heard the rival submissions of the parties and on perusal of the records, Having heard the rival submissions of the parties and on perusal of the records, it appears that admittedly, the applicant has approached this Tribunal in the year 2024 seeking a direction to the respondents to grant him the benefit of financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme after 13 years of his retirement. In the application seeking condonation of delay, the applicant has failed to disclose any satisfactory or sufficient reason explaining the delay in approaching this Tribunal. Further, the applicant has also failed to explain the delay on a day-to-day basis. Mere assertion that the applicant subsequently came to know about his alleged entitlement cannot, by itself, constitute sufficient cause for condoning such an inordinate delay, particularly when the applicant had already retired from service. In the absence of any cogent and convincing explanation for the delay, the same cannot be condoned in accordance with law. In delay condonation application, the applicant had not explained any satisfactory reason and also day to day delay in filing the original application, which is not permissible in the eyes of law.
Similar issue fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Chennai Metro Politan Water Supply & Swerage Board and Ors. Vs. T.T. Murali Babu, reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108, at relevant paras has held thus:-
“Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the Court would be under legal obligation to scrutinize whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the Court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant – a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, “procrastination is the greatest thief of time” and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis. In the case at hand, though there has been four years‟ delay in approaching the court, yet the writ court chose not to address the same. It is the duty of the court to scrutinize whether such enormous delay is to be ignored without any justification. That apart, in the present case, such belated approach gains more significance as the respondent-employee being absolutely careless to his duty and nurturing a lackadaisical attitude to the responsibility had remained unauthorisedly absent on the pretext of some kind of ill health. We repeat at the cost of repetition that remaining innocuously oblivious to such delay does not foster the cause of justice. On the contrary, it brings in injustice, for it is likely to affect others. Such delay may have impact on others‟ ripened rights and may unnecessarily drag others into litigation which in acceptable realm of probability, may have been treated to have attained finality. A court is not expected to give indulgence to such indolent persons - who compete with „Kumbhakarna‟ or for that matter „Rip Van Winkle‟. In our considered opinion, such delay does not deserve any indulgence and on the said ground alone the writ court should have thrown the petition overboard at the very threshold.”
The similarly situated persons, unlike the applicants before us, approached the court with diligence and without any delay and succeeded and now, the applicants, who are fence-sitter, approached this Tribunal after the similarly situated persons succeed in Writ Petition. The law is well settled that those persons, who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts, who had approached the court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim. However, this exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the court was judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the court or not.
In view of the above discussions and taking into consideration the fact that no plausible reason has been given or explained or brought on record by the applicant, this M.A. No.444/2024 is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, M.A. No.444/2024 stands dismissed.
Diary No.524/2024
Since, delay condonation application has already been dismissed, O.A. Number, which is registered as Diary No.524/2024 stands dismissed as time barred.
No order as to cost.
Pending M.A., if any, also stands disposed of.