Saroj Bala vs Delhi Development Authority & Anr
2012 Latest Caselaw 3457 Del

         THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                   Judgment delivered on: 23.05.2012

+       W.P.(C) 3105/2012

SAROJ BALA                                                    ... Petitioner

                                       versus

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR                             ... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner        : Ms Sriparna Chatterjee with Mr Soumitra Chatterjee
For the Respondents       : Mr Arun Birbal

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.K. JAIN

                                  JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) CM 6687/2012 The delay in re-filing is condoned.

This application stands disposed of.

WP(C) 3105/2012

1. This writ petition is directed against the orders dated 06.09.2011 and

22.11.2011 in OA 2081/2010 and RA 390/2011, respectively, passed by the

Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. The

petitioner's said Original Application and review application have been

dismissed primarily on the ground of limitation.

2. The petitioner was working as W/C (Work Charge) Mate with the

DDA. She remained continuously absent for the period 01.12.1987 to

20.06.1998. However, she was permitted to join on 20.06.1998.

Immediately thereafter disciplinary proceedings were started which

culminated in the disciplinary authority's order dated 10.10.2001 whereby

he directed that the entire period of absence be treated as "extra ordinary

leave with break in service for all purposes". The matter rested there for

some time. The petitioner did not prefer any appeal against the said order

dated 10.10.2001. The first representation made by the petitioner against

the said order was on 08.04.2002. Thereafter, the petitioner made several

other representations. The last of which was rejected by an order dated

04.01.2010. Taking advantage of the rejection dated 04.01.2010, the

petitioner filed the said Original Application No. 2081/2010, impugning the

rejection order of 04.01.2010.

3. At this juncture, it would be relevant to notice the contents of the

said order dated 04.01.2010. The relevant portion of the same reads as

under:-

"Sub: Regarding Condoning Service break.

With reference to your request dated 22.12.2009 regarding condoning service break. In this context, it is inform you that the case was sent to the Director (W/C) Estt of consideration & further orders. The same has been received back with the remarks that the Competent Authority i.e. .E./CC-17 has already taken a decision on 12.11.2009 in the file that the "period of absence cannot be regularized at this stage after a lapse of Eleven years".

(K.K. LALA) EXECUTIVE ENGINEER W.D. No. - 13: D.D.A."

It is apparent from the said order dated 04.01.2010 also that the respondent

stated that the period of absence cannot be regularized after a lapse of 11

years.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the Tribunal ought

to have considered the Original Application on merits and should not have

rejected the same on the bar of limitation. She submitted that the Original

Application was in time insofar as the rejection order dated 04.01.2010 was

concerned. But, we find that the rejection order itself was on the basis of a

long period of time having elapsed between the date on which the cause of

action arose and when the representation was made. The Tribunal has

rightly rejected the petitioner's Original Application as also the review

application on the ground of limitation by considering the fact that the

actual cause of action insofar as the regularization of the period of absence

is concerned, arose on the passing of the order dated 10.10.2001 by the

disciplinary authority. Unless and until that order was challenged, any

number of representations would make no difference. That order ought to

have been challenged either in appeal before the appellate authority or by

way of a representation within a reasonable period of time. The petitioner

did not file any appeal but made a representation on 08.04.2002. In terms

of Section 20(2)(b) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, where no

final order has been made by the Government or other authority or officer

or other person competent to pass an order with regard to an appeal

preferred or representation made by a person, then such a person shall be

deemed to have availed of all the remedies available to him upon the period

of six months, from the date on which the representation was made, having

expired. And, in terms of Section 21(1)(b) of the said Act, such a person

would have one year from the end of the said period of six months to file an

Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal. In this

case, the representation was moved by the petitioner on 08.04.2002 and the

period of six months plus the further period of one year expired on

08.10.2003. The Original Application was filed only in 2010 after a period

of about seven years. Clearly, the Tribunal was right in rejecting the

Original Application filed by the petitioner on the ground of limitation.

Since the petitioner had not filed any application for condonation of delay,

the Tribunal could not even examine that aspect of the matter.

5. As regards the series of representations that were made by the

petitioner after the first representation of 08.04.2002, it is clear that

repeated representations would not extend the period of limitation. As

such, we find no fault in the orders passed by the Tribunal. The writ

petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

V.K. JAIN, J MAY 23, 2012 SR