Sansar Chand vs Union Of India & Anr.

By way of filing the present Miscellaneous Application (M.A.), the applicant herein seeks condonation of delay of a period of 37 years, computed from 01.11.1987, the date on which he alleges that he was dismissed from service by the respondents on account of his continued unauthorised absence. After his dismissal, the applicant states that he continued to make representations and personally visit Respondent No. 2 for release of his Provident Fund (PF) amount and for grant of Compassionate Allowance. However, according to him, there was no response from the respondents. When his oral representations were not heeded to by the respondents, he finally submitted a written representation dated 28.02.2024, followed by reminders dated 12.06.2024 and 24.09.2024. Since there was no response to these representations, he filed the accompanying Original Application (O.A.) on 15.10.2024.

The applicant states that he is illiterate and was not aware of the Rules and that, all this while, he was trying to explore the administrative remedy by verbally pursuing his grievance before the respondents. He seeks condonation of delay of 37 years by relying upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & Ors., (2013) 12 SCC 649; Divisional Manager, Plantation Division, Andaman & Nicobar Islands v. Munnu Barrick & Ors., (2005) 2 SCC 237; Improvement Trust, Ludhiana v. Ujagar Singh, MANU/SC/0417/2010; N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, MANU/SC/0573/1998; Madras Port Trust v. Hymanshu International, MANU/SC/0046/1979; Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji& Ors., (1987) 2 SCC 107; State of Bihar & Ors. v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh &Anr., (2000) 9 SCC 94; M. Madhuri Goud v. B. Damodar Reddy, (2012) 12 SCC 693; Balwant Singh v. Jagdish Singh & Ors., (2010) 8 SCC 685; and H.D. Vora v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (1984) 2 SCC 337.

The applicant has also relied upon the decisions of the Coordinate Benches of this Tribunal in K.L. Mendiratta v. Union of India, MANU/CA/0092/2008; Prem Kumar v. DTC & Ors., O.A. No. 4017/2011&M.A. No. 2997/2011, decided on 26.04.2016; M.A. No. 302/2017 in O.A. No. 3449/2016, decided on 10.08.2017; and M.A. No. 3391/2016 in O.A. No. 3437/2016, decided on 15.11.2017.

Learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the prayer for condonation of delay of 37 years by referring to the counter affidavit and submitting that the applicant has placed on record no evidence to demonstrate that he had ever made any official request before the respondents for release of his alleged PF amount or for grant of Compassionate Allowance. It is submitted that the first written representation made by the applicant was only in February 2024, followed by reminders, apparently as a precursor to filing the present O.A. It is, therefore, contended that the applicant has failed to disclose any ‘sufficient cause’ within the meaning of Section 21(3) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, for condonation of such an inordinate delay.

Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the grounds urged by the applicant, namely, illiteracy, financial incapacity and alleged non-information by fellow members, do not constitute legally sustainable reasons for explaining the inordinate delay. The applicant’s plea that his unauthorised absence, for which he was dismissed from service on 01.11.1987, was attributable to long-standing health issues is also stated to be wholly untenable, as no medical certificate or other medical record has been produced to establish that the applicant remained continuously ill during the intervening period of 37 years.

Learned counsel for the respondents has further submitted that, after a lapse of 37 years, the respondents’ organisation is not likely to have preserved the records pertaining to the applicant’s PF account. It is also not known whether the applicant had already been granted or paid his PF dues at the time of his dismissal.

I have heard learned counsels for both the sides and perused the pleadings and the material available on record.

I find that the applicant has not placed on record any document either to establish that he was an illiterate person or that he was suffering from any ailment during the relevant period. He has also not furnished any document to establish that he was indeed dismissed from service with effect from 01.11.1987.

I further find that the first written representation made by the applicant to the respondents was only on 28.02.2024, after a lapse of approximately 37 years from the date of the alleged dismissal.

Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, provides as under:

The legal position in this regard is well settled. In C. Jacob v. Director of Geology & Mining &Anr., (2008) 10 SCC 115, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered a case where an employee approached the authorities after a considerable lapse of time and thereafter sought to revive his claim through representations. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a representation relating to a stale or time-barred claim cannot furnish a fresh cause of action or revive a dead claim. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also cautioned that where an employee approaches the Court after a prolonged period, the absence of old service records with the employer cannot, by itself, be made a ground for granting relief to the employee.

Similarly, in Union of India & Ors. v. M.K. Sarkar, (2010) 2 SCC 59, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the question of limitation, delay and laches has to be examined with reference to the original cause of action and that a belated representation cannot revive a stale or dead claim or furnish a fresh cause of action.

Further, in Basawaraj&Anr. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that ‘sufficient cause’ requires an adequate and satisfactory explanation for the delay and that where a party has acted negligently, failed to act diligently or remained inactive, there is no justification for condoning an inordinate delay.

The facts of the present case are rather peculiar. The applicant claims to have been working as a ‘Driver’ and alleges that he was dismissed from service with effect from 01.11.1987. However, apart from making a bald assertion that he was illiterate and unaware of the applicable Rules, he has not placed on record any material in support of such assertions. He has also not explained how, according to his own case, he continued to sustain himself for all these 37 years without receiving the alleged Compassionate Allowance, nor has he produced any record relating to his PF dues.

In these circumstances, after a lapse of 37 years, requiring the respondents to trace records relating to the applicant’s service, dismissal and PF dues, particularly when the applicant himself has not produced any contemporaneous record in support of his claim, would be nothing short of a wild goose chase. The applicant has thus failed to furnish any cogent, convincing or legally sufficient explanation for such an inordinate delay of 37 years. Mere assertions of illiteracy, financial difficulties, lack of knowledge of the Rules, or alleged oral representations, without any supporting material, cannot constitute ‘sufficient cause’ for condoning such an extraordinary delay.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Tribunal is not inclined to condone the delay of 37 years in filing the accompanying O.A. The present M.A. is, therefore, dismissed.

Consequently, since the accompanying O.A. has been filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation and the delay therein has not been condoned, the O.A. is also dismissed on the ground of limitation. No order as to costs.