Ramesh vs Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi Through Its Secretary

V. Ajay Kumar, J

Heard Shri Ratnesh Bansal with Ms. Ashu, the learned counsel for the applicant.

The applicant, a retired Safai Karamchari under the 2nd respondent-Lok Nayak Hospital, filed the OA seeking the following reliefs:-

"(a) Quash/set aside the Letter/order of 28.12.2017 bearing No.2252/117764/E-II/LNH/7/1748 and bearing No.R-30/Delhi-111/2014/SSW-1 dated 19/21.8.2014 issued by the respondents in violation of the law, rules and principles of natural justice as well as letter bearing ref. No. 2252/117764/LNH/E-II/LNH/1373 dated 25.07.2014.

(b) To quash and set aside the show cause notice dated 25.07.2014 and 07.08.2014 issued by the respondents.

( c) Direct the respondents to allow the applicant to join his duty with back wages thereby treating the date of birth of the applicant as 15.8.1959.

(d) Pass any other order(s), in favour of the applicants, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of case as well as in the interest of justice".

The applicant was mainly aggrieved with the action of the respondents in retiring him from service with effect from 31.08.2014, by treating his date of birth as 15.08.1954, basing on his Service Record. The latest proceedings which were challenged in the OA is the Annexure A-1 Memorandum dated 28.12.2017 whereunder the 2nd respondent- Lok Nayak Hospital requested the applicant to submit the documents mentioned therein to enable them to process his pension case.

The applicant though was retired from service w.e.f. 31.08.2014 and that though his case was that his actual date of birth is 15.08.1959, he has not challenged the action of the respondents in retiring him with effect from 31.08.2014 for all these about 4½ years, but for the first time, he approached this Tribunal by way of the instant OA.

Shri Ratnesh Bansal, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the OA is well within the period of limitation as the respondents illegally retired him with effect from 31.08.2014. We cannot agree with the said submission. The cause of action for the OA was the action of the respondents in retiring the applicant with effect from 31.08.2014. Hence, the OA is barred by the period of limitation. The applicant has not even filed any MA seeking condonation of delay in filing the OA. Even the said fact was pointed out to the learned counsel for the applicant, but he submitted that there is no delay in filing the OA.

In the circumstances and for the aforesaid reasons, the OA is dismissed being barred by the period of limitation. However, this order shall not preclude the applicant from submitting the necessary documents in response to the Annexure A-1 Memorandum dated 28.12.2017, to enable the respondents to process his pension case. On furnishing the said documents, we are sanguine that the respondents shall process the pension case of the applicant within a reasonable period, as per rules. No costs.