Union of India and Ors. vs C.A.T., Allahabad Bench and Ors.

Yogesh Chandra Gupta,J.

Heard Sri B.B.Paul, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.Madhyan, learned counsel for the contested respondents.

By means of this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 10.2.2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal allowing the application no. 505 of 2005 filed by the respondents. The respondents who were six in number filed the application before the aforesaid Tribunal praying for regularisation of their services as Casual labours on the ground that they had put in over 120 days'' services as casual labour and were also granted temporary status as required under Rules, but they have not been called for screening in the fresh recruitment rather their juniors have been called. The applicantsrespondents also claim that they having completed 120 days'' services they have right for regularisation. The applicantsrespondents worked in different establishments of Railways department for different period details of which have been mentioned in the order of Tribunal. The petitioner Union of India who was respondent in the claim petition taken the stand that the claim of the applicantsrespondents for regularisation was barred by limitation and the Tribunal ought to have dismissed the application.

The learned counsel for the petitioners challenging the directions given by the Tribunal in para 15 of the impugned order contended that the period of limitation as prescribed in Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is one year and the delay beyond that cannot be condoned. The Tribunal has not considered the latches in filing of the application and the claim petition ought to have been rejected on this ground alone. Sri B.B.Paul, further contended that as provided in Section 29 of the Limitation Act the period of limitation so far as the local law is concerned, may be extended for further period of one year and not beyond that. It is further contended by Sri B.B.Paul that the directions issued by the Tribunal preclude the petitioners from scrutinising the service record and working period of the applicantsrespondents and if such scrutiny of the service record and their discontinuation of working period is made, they would not be entitled for regularisation. He has placed reliance on judgments in Ratam Chandra Sammanta & ors. Vs. The Union of India & Ors. JT 1993 (3) S.C. 418 and of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45739 of 2006 Rajendra Singh & Ors. Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad & Ors. decided on 31.8.2006.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The first submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that by virtue of Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, the period of limitation could not have been extended beyond one year. The provisions of Section 21(3) are to the following effect:

"Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1) or subsection (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 subsection (2), if the applicant satisfies the Tribunal that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period."

The learned counsel further refers the provisions of Section 29 of Limitation Act which are to the following effects

"Section 29 (2): Where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed by the Schedule, the provisions of Section 3 shall apply as if such period were the period prescribed and for the purpose of determining any period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law, the provisions contained in Sections 4 to 24 inclusive shall apply only in so far as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law."

The provisions of Section 29 (2) clearly indicate that the special law or local law provides period of limitation as prescribed by the Schedule will be applicable in suit, appeal and application.

The Administrative Tribunal is an special law, therefore the provisions of Section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act shall prevail. The next limb of the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is that at the most the period of limitation shall be extended for a further period of one year and no more. From the bare perusal of the provisions of aforesaid Section it is clear that there is no outer limit of limitation for condonation of delay.

Sri B.B.Paul, relying on the decision of this Court in Ratam Chandra Sammanta & ors. Vs. The Union of India & Ors (supra), contended that the claim for regularisation was rejected on the ground of delay in filing the claim petition. The question as to whether the delay deserves to be condoned or not defers from the facts and circumstances of the case. In the present case the Tribunal issued directions as contained in para 15 of the impugned order. The Railways authority has been directed to consider the seniority of the applicantsrespondents and in case they are found eligible after scrutinising their service record and continuity of working period, they shall be given preference over their juniors. As observed above, the petitioners have not been precluded from considering the service record and working period of the applicantsrespondents.

With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed.