Delhi High Court
Ajay Maniram Yadav vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Ors on 15 January, 2018
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 244/2018 & CM Nos.1044-45/2018
AJAY MANIRAM YADAV ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Vijay Pal Sharma, Advocate
versus
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
ORDER
% 15.01.2018
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing an order
dated 19.08.2017 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, dismissing
his OA No.1685/16 along with the miscellaneous application for seeking
condonation of delay in filing the said OA wherein he had challenged the
order dated 17.05.10 passed by the respondents/BSNL, rejecting his request
for compassionate appointment on the ground that on an evaluation made by
the Committee constituted by the BSNL for recommendation of
compassionate appointments, it did not find the family of the deceased
employee in a state of financial crisis.
2. By the impugned order, the Tribunal had dismissed Miscellaneous
Application No.166/2016 filed by the petitioner along-with the OA for
seeking condonation of delay by observing that the explanation offered by
the petitioner is extremely vague and unsatisfactory.
3. As per the fact position, Sh.Maniram Yadav, father of the petitioner,
who had joined the respondent/BSNL on 29.08.1983, was serving at
Ahmadabad as a class-IV employee till he expired on 20.01.2007, while still
in service. On 13.12.2007, the petitioner had filed an application seeking
compassionate appointment which was rejected by the Competent Authority
on 08.04.2010. The aforesaid order dated 08.04.2010 was communicated by
the respondent/BSNL to the petitioner on 17.05.2010. Instead of
immediately seeking legal recourse against the said rejection order, the
petitioner waited for three years upto 03.06.2013, when he submitted a
representation to the Lieutenant Governor, GNCT of Delhi for
reconsideration of his case.
4. The petitioner states that the aforesaid representation remained
pending in the office of the Lieutenant Governor, GNCT of Delhi and after
about 5½ years reckoned from 17.05.2010, he filed the OA before the
Tribunal raising a grievance in respect of the rejection order dated
08.04.2010 passed by the respondents/BSNL. The Miscellaneous
Application for condonation of delay filed along with the said petition has
been disposed of by the Tribunal by passing the impugned order declining to
condone the delay holding that the OA is barred by delay and latches.
5. On examining the averments made by the petitioner in the application
for condonation of delay filed along with the OA, it transpires that the first
ground taken by him for explaining the delay is that he was facing financial
hardship due to which he could not seek legal recourse and the second plea is
that he was attending to his elder brother who was suffering from some
disease and had to undergo a surgery.
6. On a perusal of the medical documents related to the petitioner's
brother, filed at Annexure A-8 (Colly) with the petition, it transpires that the
same relate to July, 2008 when the impugned order had not even been
passed. Therefore, the health condition of the petitioner's brother could not
be taken to explain the prolonged delay in filing the OA.
7. As far the financial hardship expressed by the petitioner, except from a
one line bald statement, nothing at all has been stated by him to explain the
nature of financial constraints faced by him. One would have thought that his
penurious condition would have propelled the petitioner to act with alacrity
and seek legal recourse expeditiously.
8. Given the fact that the petitioner has been extremely ambiguous in
explaining such an inordinate delay of five and a half years in filing the OA,
the Tribunal cannot be faulted in making an observation that the petitioner
has miserably failed to explain the delay satisfactorily. In this context, we
propose to reproduce para nos.2 to 5 of the order passed by the Tribunal
which are self explanatory and read as under:-
"2. The applicant has further stated that as he was facing
financial hardship, therefore, some time had elapsed before
approaching this Tribunal. An added ground mentioned by the
applicant is that his elder brother was suffering from some
diseases and was also operated upon, and on this count also the
applicant was under immense mental pressure as well as
monetary hardship. All these have led to delay in approaching
this Tribunal.
3. The respondents in their reply have strongly opposed the
Misc. Application filed by the applicant seeking condonation of
delay. They have stated that the applicant has challenged the
impugned order dated 17.05.2010, which was admittedly
received by him on 03.06.2010. The present OA has been
preferred only on 17.12.2005 i.e. after a lapse of more than 5½
years without giving any cogent reasons in the accompanied
MA for condonation of delay.
4. The issue before me is whether the applicant has been able to
satisfactorily explain the delay in filing the OA. It is an admitted
fact that the impugned order was passed on 17.05.2010 and it
was received by the applicant on 03.06.2010. It is also on
record that the OA has been filed on 17.12.2015.
5. I have carefully considered the grounds taken by the
applicant in the MA for this long delay of 5½ years. A
significant part of this delay the applicant has tried to explain,
is attributable to his pending representation before the Ministry
of Information & Broadcasting which was referred to by the
former Governor Sh.Romesh Bhandari. This reference by
Sh.Romesh Bhandari made on 03.06.2013, which is a good
three years after the applicant had learnt about the impugned
order, can by no stretch of imagination be treated as a formal
representation. But even if one were to take a lenient view in the
matter, one would have to bear in mind Section 21 (3) of the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 which provides as under:-
"21(3). Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
section (1) or sub-section (2), an application may be
admitted after the period of one year specified in clause
(a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) or, as the case may be,
the period of six months specified in sub-section (2), if the
applicant satisfies the Tribunal that he had sufficient
cause for not making the application within such period."
Therefore, seeing from whatever angle, this plea of the
applicant for explaining the delay is clearly unacceptable. His
other plea that the delay had taken place on account of his elder
brother‟s illness, his mental stress and financial hardship can
also not be accepted. Firstly they are vague and, secondly they
have not been explained in terms of the time taken by the
applicant in dealing with these problems. It is undisputed that
the law requires that each day‟s delay in filing the OA needs to
be explained, which the applicant has failed to do."
9. Having regard to the settled law on making compassionate
appointment which requires the aggrieved family members of the deceased
employee who dies in harness to approach the Court at the earliest for
succour so as to overcome their immediate financial crises and tide over their
penurious condition which they would have to face on the demise of the sole
earning members of the family, we find no reason to entertain the present
petition when the petitioner has taken five and a half years to approach the
Tribunal for relief.
10. If the petitioner's claim of financial hardship was genuine and he
wanted to challenge the order dated 17.5.2010 passed by the
respondents/BSNL, he ought to have been prompt in seeking legal recourse.
Instead, he elected to approach the Tribunal only in the year 2015, and that
too without offering any satisfactory explanation for such an excessive
delay.
11. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the present petition which is
accordingly dismissed in limine along with the pending applications.
HIMA KOHLI, J.
REKHA PALLI, J.
JANUARY 15, 2018
„pg‟
