Basanti Rawat And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2007 Latest Caselaw 299 Del

JUDGMENT

Mukul Mudgal, J.

1. Rule DB.

2. With the consent of both the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing.

3. This Writ Petition challenges the order dated 18th July, 2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, dismissing the O.A. No. 1511 of 1998 filed by the Petitioners. The Petitioner No. 1 had been engaged as Mobile Booking Clerks (MBCs) on honorarium basis for clearing the summer rush for a period from 25th August, 1983 to 19th February, 1985 and the Petitioner No. 2 was engaged from 15th July, 1983 to 21st November, 1983.

4. By a letter dated 06.02.1990 the MBCs who were engaged prior to 17.11.1986 were to be considered for regular absorption as and when they approached the Railway Administration, subject to their fulfillment of other conditions laid down in Circulars dated 21.04.1982 and 20.04.1985.

5. In the meanwhile, the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 27.07.1995 in SLP (C) No. 14756-61/1993 reiterated the directions given by the Tribunal in the case of Miss Usha Kumari Anand and Ors. v. UOI and Ors. AIR 1989 (2) CAT 37 and directed the examination of such MBCs in accordance with the directions contained in para 37 and para 38 of the Tribunal's order in 'Miss Usha Kumari Anand's case (supra).

6. The Tribunal has dismissed the OA on the ground of latches and delay as the Petitioners have approached the Tribunal after 12 years. The Tribunal has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Bhoop Singh v. UOI to the following effect. The judgment and Orders of the Court in other cases do not give cause of action. The cause of action has to be reckoned from the actual date.

7. Taking into account the fact that the Petitioners were indeed sleeping on their rights for 12 years in approaching the Tribunal and awoke only after the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court pronounced in favor of other MBCs, thus laches are clearly established.

8. Consequently, we see no fault in the reasoning of the Tribunal rejecting the OA on the ground of laches and delay.

The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.