JUDGMENT By the Court—This writ petition is directed against the order dated 22.2.1999 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad dismissing the original application No. 1208 of 1998 filed by the petitioner, as not maintainable, and the order dated 9.2.2000 dismissing the review application of the petitioner. 2. We have heard Sri Navin Kumar Gupta holding brief of Sri B.B. Paul, learned Counsel for the petitioner. 3. Admittedly, the petitioners claiming appointment under the M.R. (Loyalist Quota) approached the Central Administrative Tribunal for the first time in 1998 in original application No. 1208 of 1998 and by the impugned order their application was rejected. It appears from the order of the learned Tribunal that the circular providing such appointment was issued on 18.5.1974. None of the petitioners were even eligible for appointment since they were minor or had even not born in 1974 but it appears that their fathers were working in the railways and despite call of the strike attended their duties showing their loyalty to the department. The petitioner either born after several years of the circular dated 18.5.1974 or were minor at that time, thus, could not have got any benefit under this circular. The factum that the petitioners born much after the aforesaid circular, is apparent from the fact that petitioner No. 5, Radhey Shyam has shown his date of birth as 1.1.1982 vide Annexure II to the writ petition. Similarly, petitioner No. 1, Vinod Kumar Gupta has shown his age as 24 years in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition sworn in July, 2001 i.e. after 27 years of the issuance of the circular, which shows that he was also born in the yearr 1977. The petitioners, who appeared to be unemployed persons, whose fathers were railway servants approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, for the first time, in the year 1998 claiming appointment under loyal quota pursuant to circular dated 18.5.1974. Since the petitioners approached after more than 24-25 years, the learned Tribunal declined to grant relief on the ground that the same is not maintainable. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the cause of action is continuing since they were repeatedly representing the matter and thereafter the application could not have been rejected by the Tribunal as not maintainable. 5. However, we are not impressed with the said argument. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the cause of action is continuing since they were repeatedly representing the matter and thereafter the application could not have been rejected by the Tribunal as not maintainable. 5. However, we are not impressed with the said argument. Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1985), provides for limitation which is reproduced as under: “21. Limitation.—(1) A Tribunal shall not admit an application,- (a) in a case where a final order such as is mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 20 has been made in connection with the grievance unless the application is made, within one year from the date on which such final order has been made; (b) in a case where an appeal or representation such as is mentioned in clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 20 has been made and a period of six months had expired thereafter without such final order having been made, within one year from the date of expiry of the said period of six months. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where— (a) the grievance in respect of which an application is made had arisen by reason of any order made at any time during the period of three years immediately preceding the date on which the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunal becomes exercisable under this Act in respect of the matter to which such order relates; and (b) no proceeding for the redressal of such grievance had been commenced before the said date before any High Court, the application shall be entertained by the Tribunal if it is made within the period referred to in clause (a), or, as the case may be, clause (b) of sub-section (1) or within a period of six months from the said date, whichever period expires later. (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.” 6. Section 21 (1) of the Act of 1985 provides limitation of one year from the date final order is passed against which an employee may approach the Tribunal raising his grievance. Admittedly, cause of action for the petitioner to claim appointment arose in the year 1974. They did not initiate any legal proceeding for redressal of their grievance within a reasonable time thereafter. The Administrative Tribunal at Allahabad was constituted with effect from 1.11.1985. Sub-section (2) of Section 21 also provides that where the cause of action arises during the period of three years immediately preceding the date on which the jurisdiction, power and authority of the Tribunal becomes exercisable under the said Act and in such matters application is filed before the Tribunal within the period referred to in sub-section (1), even then the same can be entertained. Even applying the aforesaid provision, the case of the petitioner does not come within the ambit of sub-section (2) of Section 21 of the Act of 1985. In respect of matters and cause of action arising prior to three years from the date on which the Tribunal is empowered to exercise its power under the Act of 1985, the matter is not cognizable by the Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner as not maintainable. 7. We do not find any error apparent on the face of record committed by the Tribunal warranting any interference and, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed in limine. 8. In the circumstances, the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition Dismissed. ———