Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1296 (MP)

Mohd. Rafique v. Union of India

2014-10-09

ROHIT ARYA, S.K.GANGELE

body2014
JUDGMENT: This petition has been filed against the order dated 28/11/2013 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.604/2011. The Tribunal dismissed the application with the following observations:- “6.First relief claimed by the applicant is in regard to quashing of order dated 27.8.1980 by which he was removed from service. However, challenging the order of dismissal after 31 years is n stale claim, which is clearly barred by limitation. In the OA no reasons whatsoever, have been given for such delay. Thus, the first relief claimed by the applicant is barred by limitation, and therefore, cannot be granted at this stage. 7. The second relief claimed by him is to provide consequential benefit on account of cancellation of the order dated 27.8.1980. Since the first relief has not been granted, the second relief also cannot be granted at this stage. 8. The third relief claimed by the applicant is in regard to quashing of the order for grant of compassionate allowance w.e.f. 30.08.2008 to him. Since the compassionate allowance has been sanctioned to him by the respondents by taking a sympathetic view, even though his earlier application in this regard had been rejected, if this order is quashed, the applicant will be deprived of whatever relief he is getting from the respondents, on account of sympathetic consideration by them. Thus, in the interest of the applicant, this relief is also not being granted.” 2. From the findings recorded by the Tribunal, it is clear that the petitioner claimed a relief of quashing the order dated 27/8/1980 by which he was removed from service. In our opinion, the Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim of petitioner because the petitioner raised the claim and filed application after a period of near about 31 years. The order dated 27/8/1980 was upheld therefore certainly petitioner was not eligible to claim consequential benefits. Hence, in our opinion no error of jurisdiction has been committed by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order. 3. Hence, we do not find any merits in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is hereby dismissed.