Judgment : Anoop V. Mohta J. 1. The matter is called out from the final hearing board. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The Petitioner, who is 82 years old and physically unfit because of accident on duty, has challenged order dated 13 December 1996 in Original Application No. 802 of 1994 and order dated 16 September 1997 passed in Review Petition No. 43 of 1997 in OA No. 802 of 1994 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short, “CAT”), mainly on the ground of delay and not on merits of the claim of pensionery benefits, so raised by the Petitioner. The Petition is pending since 1998. The Respondents, by reply resisted the claim of all grounds and placed on record the additional material to justify their defence that the Petitioner is not entitled for any benefits including pensionery benefits as prayed. 3. The requisite rules and regulations and the contentions so raised through the affidavit, as we have noted, not dealt with by the learned Tribunal, as the original application was dismissed solely on the ground of delay. 4. This Court, while admitting the Petition on 21 September 1998, has noted as under : “We have heard Shri Sawant, learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner, who has taken us through the record. Surprisingly, despite finding that the petitioner had suffered because of “criminal negligence” resulting in the delay for about 9 years in the Petitioner being offered a job the negligence being on the part of the Respondent-Railway authorities the petition was summarily rejected out on the ground of limitation by the Central Administrative Tribunal. Our judicial consciences does not, cannot permit this. 2. Rule, returnable peremptorily on 5th October, 1998. Hamdast permitted. 3. Despite our best efforts to secure the presence of the Respondents before us by a notice issued by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner, none has appeared today. Hence, we direct that the Rule shall state that the Respondents shall be ready with their affidavits, if any, on 5th October, 1998 for final hearing of this writ petition and that no application for time to file affidavit would be entertained on that day.” 5. The Petitioner joined as “Rakshak” in RPF in the year 1957. He met with an accident on duty in the year 1975. The Petitioner joined as “Rakshak” in RPF in the year 1957. He met with an accident on duty in the year 1975. On 20 April 1977, as he was hospitalized, the Medical Board found him unfit for Head Rakshak. The extra ordinary leave was granted and ultimately on 15 November 1977, he was terminated as the Respondent's Administration could not find alternate employment. On 17 November 1977, there was a communication about the available vacancy, but as the Petitioner was already terminated, it was sent back to GM's sanction to extend the extra ordinary leave. The Correspondences were exchanged. In the year 1979, RPF requested the Railway Board to grant extra ordinary leave. The Administration offered settlement dues to the Petitioner in the year 1980. Hamal's post was also offered, subject to the certain condition in the year 1982 and he was interviewed for the same, but as more than 5 years were passed from the medically de-categorization, his case was not considered at that time also. Ultimately, on 20 September 1986, the Petitioner was absorbed as peon in the office of DIG, RPF on the same pay-scale, which he was drawing at the time of de-categorization. However, the increment for the period 1977 to 1986 was not granted. By order dated 24 October 1986, the learned President sanctioned extraordinary leave for the period in question, subject to certain conditions. The Petitioner, therefore, refunded settlement dues accordingly. The Petitioner's request for wages for the period in question, were pending till his retirement as Junior Clerk on 31 July 1993. Ultimately, on 25 April 1994, the Petitioner made representation and requested to count the period from 15 November 1977 to 1 September 1986 for the pentionery benefits. There was no response. Therefore, ultimately on 4 July 1994, the Petitioner filed Original Application No. 802 of 1994 before CAT, though the Petitioner got pension for the excluding period in question. In this background, the order of dismissing the Original Application on the ground of delay, in our view, is unsustainable. The Petitioner retired on 31 July 1993 and made representation to count the period for the pensionery benefits on 25 April 1994, as that was not considered, he filed the present Petition. 6. This, in our view, is sufficient reason/case to consider the claim of the Petitioner to the pensionery benefits on merits rather than dismissing on the ground of delay. 6. This, in our view, is sufficient reason/case to consider the claim of the Petitioner to the pensionery benefits on merits rather than dismissing on the ground of delay. Even otherwise, the cause of action for claiming pensionery benefits is always continuing. Such benefits cannot be denied and specifically in the present facts and circumstances of the case, on the ground of delay as done by the impugned order. 7. After considering the relevant rules and regulations so read and referred by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, and as noted that the learned Tribunal has not even dealt with the merits of the claim so raised, and as the Respondents cannot justify and/or defend the order for the first time in the writ jurisdiction in the High Court, and the question of interpretation of rules and regulations and/or service conditions, in our view, need to be decided/adjudicated by the Tribunal. Therefore, by keeping all points open, so far as the pensionery benefits claim is concerned, we direct the learned Tribunal to decide the same in accordance with law on merits of the matter itself. There is no question of rejecting such claim on the ground of delay. 8. It is relevant to note that the Petitioner never filed any application for condonation of delay, as from the point of view of the Petitioner, the Original Application itself was filed within limitation and there was no delay. We have noted that the learned Tribunal, while rejecting the Original Application, not even dealt with this aspect by giving opportunity to the Petitioner, as per the law for condonation of delay in filing such Original Application but rejected the claim on the ground of delay itself. 9. Therefore, taking over all view of the matter and in the interest of justice and as rightly observed by this Court at the time of admission of the matter, as well as, by the Tribunal that the Petitioner-Applicant has suffered because of Respondents/Management negligence which resulted in the delay for about 9 years for offering any job the Petitioner cannot be allowed to suffer even such pensionery benefits which he is constitutionally entitled. 10. Therefore, the following order: ORDER a) Impugned orders dated 13 December 1996 and 16 September 1997 are quashed and set aside. b) Original Application No. 802 of 1994 is restored to file. 10. Therefore, the following order: ORDER a) Impugned orders dated 13 December 1996 and 16 September 1997 are quashed and set aside. b) Original Application No. 802 of 1994 is restored to file. c) The learned Tribunal to decide Original Application No. 802 of 1994 for the above reasons, as early as possible, preferably within 3 months from the date of receipt of the copy of this Judgment. d) All points are kept open. e) The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. f) There shall be no order as to costs.