Dr. Naresh Kumar Gupta vs Union Of India & Others
2011 Latest Caselaw 1870 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+           W.P.(C) No.17735/2005


%                                Date of Decision: 30.03.2011


DR. NARESH KUMAR GUPTA                                 ..... Petitioner
                  Through :          None.

                  versus

UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS                                .... Respondent
                    Through :        None.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL

1.    Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed
      to see the judgment ? No
2.    To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
3.    Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? No

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 Vs. 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 under Section 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 under

Section 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.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

VEENA BIRBAL, J.

MARCH 30, 2011 srb