Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2209 (RAJ)

A. K. Doshi v. Union of India

2005-08-23

MANAK MOHTA

body2005
Judgment N.N. Mathur, J.-By way of instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench dated 210.2003 dismissing the OA as barred by limitation. 2. The short facts giving rise to the instant petition are that the petitioner retired as Director, Inspection and Investigations on 312.1997 on attaining the age of superannuation. He was appointed as a Member (Technical) Company Law Board by order dated 22nd 1998. He reported for duty on 25.05.1998 before the Chairman, Company Law Board. He was posted at Southern Region Bench, Company Law Board at Chennai. By order dated 27.05.1998. He was administered the oath of the office and secrecy on 29.05.1998 at Chennai. On being transferred he joined at Delhi on 02.09.1998. He was re-transferred from Delhi to Chennai on 15.03.1998. The appointment of the petitioner as Member (Technical), Company Law Board was quashed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The respondent issued an order dated 12.01.2000 to the effect that in terms of the order dated 20.12.1999 of the Delhi High Court, he ceased to be Member (Tehnical), Company Law Board w.e.f. 20.12.1999. It appears that the petitioner was given a liberty to make fresh representation on which the respondents were required to reconsider the matter afresh for re-appointment. The petitioner made representation for grant of leave encashment, Central Provident Fund and TA Bills. Since, the petitioenr’s grievances were not redressed inasmuch as that he was not paid his dues, he filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench on 15.04.2002 seeking following reliefs:- “(a) Reimbursement of Airfare from Delhi to Chennai of 29.05.1993 by Indian Airlines amounting to Rs. 6,955.00 as also a lump sum grant of Rs. 19,400/-. (b) Payment of bringing his luggage from Delhi to Chennai sometime in August, 1999. (c) Reimbursement of Airfare from Chennai to Delhi on 010.1999 by Indian Airlines amount to Rs. 7,720/-. (d) Reimbursement of Airfare from Delhi to Chennai of 210.1999 by Airlines amount to Rs. 7,720/-. (e) Reimbursement of Taxi fare from Delhi Airport to NOIDA of 010.1999 amounting to Rs. 350/ -. (f) Reimbursement of Taxi fare from NOIDA to Delhi Airport of 210.999 amounting to Rs. 300/ -. (g) Pay of G.P.F. Amount. (h) Payment of Leave Encashment amount, for which orders were apparently passed on 012.2001. 7,720/-. (e) Reimbursement of Taxi fare from Delhi Airport to NOIDA of 010.1999 amounting to Rs. 350/ -. (f) Reimbursement of Taxi fare from NOIDA to Delhi Airport of 210.999 amounting to Rs. 300/ -. (g) Pay of G.P.F. Amount. (h) Payment of Leave Encashment amount, for which orders were apparently passed on 012.2001. (i) Payment of T.A. Bill amounting to Rs. 24,093/-(as a post retirement benefit) for which a claim was submitted on 011.2001. (j) Though the applicant was relieved on 112.1999, he kept on hoping to be reappointed till 31.07.2001 (in view of the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 02.03.2001 in Civil Appeal No. 1692 of 2001 etc.) when a decision was taken by the Govt. of India that no one should be appointed to the Board. The applicant has claimed salary and allowances for this period. (k) Interest on all the aforesaid amounts till payment.” The OA was contested by the respondents inter alia on the ground that it was barred by limitation. According to the cause of action arose on 29.05.1998 when the petitioner performed the Delhi-Chennai journey for which his claim for T.A. has not been accepted. It was further found that the petitioner ceased to be Member of service on 20.12.1999. Thus, he could have filed the OA within a period of one year from the date of retirement. The Tribunal observed that the petitioner unnecessarily kept hoping about redressal of his grievances and delayed in approaching the Tribunal. In view of the finding, the learned Tribunal rejected the OA as barred by limitation. 3. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the Tribunal has taken a superficial view without appreciating the material on record in right perspective. The respondents themselves have not treated the claim of the petitioner as time barred. The payment of Rs. 2,42,561/-was released during the pendency of the OA before the Tribunal. The Bench Officer vide letter dated 1.03.06 2003 released the payment of leave encashment for 38 days in place of 45 days. The petitioner was further informed that interest on CPF in other matters has been forwarded to Company Law Board for necessary action. Thus, according to respondents No. 1 to 3 the matter is still pending with them. In view of this the Tribunal committed manifest error in considering that the OA was barred by limitation. 4. The petitioner was further informed that interest on CPF in other matters has been forwarded to Company Law Board for necessary action. Thus, according to respondents No. 1 to 3 the matter is still pending with them. In view of this the Tribunal committed manifest error in considering that the OA was barred by limitation. 4. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The order of the Tribunal dated 210.2003 is set aside. The Tribunal is directed to adjudicate the OA on merit. As the matter is old one, the Tribunal is further directed to dispose of the OA within a period of three months from today. The parties shall appear before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench on 12.09.2005.