A cook at NAL sought pensionary benefits from his initial appointment; his OA before the Central Administrative Tribunal was dismissed for delay and laches. The High Court held the application barred by Section 21(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act and dismissed the writ petition, noting he joined under NPS in 2005.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:11047-DB WP No. 12430 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
WRIT PETITION NO. 12430 OF 2023 (S-CAT)
BETWEEN:
H.S.DATTARREYA, S/O SUBBARAJU, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, COOK, NAL CANTEEN, NATIONAL AEROSPACE LABORATORIES, P.B.NO.1779, BENGALURU-560 017.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PANDURANGA NAYAK.U, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE DIRECTOR,
Digitally signed by HARIKRISHNA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
NATIONAL AEROSPACE LABORATORIES, P.B.NO.1779, BENGALURU-560 017.
…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SHANTHI BHUSHAN.H, DSGI)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU, BENCH DATED 29-03-2023 IN O.A. No. 170/00130/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-B, AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINAY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, RAJESH RAI K , J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner, in this writ petition, has challenged the legality and correctness of the order passed in O.A.No.130/2023 dated 29.03.2023 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short 'Tribunal'), wherein the Tribunal has dismissed the application filed by petitioner with an observation that the dismissal of the OA will not come in the way of the petitioner to file a fresh comprehensive representation before the respondent for redressal of his grievances, if so advised.
The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Cook during January 1988 and he has worked till 31.08.2001 with the respondent. Earlier the petitioner was working in the Departmental Canteen of National Aerospace Laboratories (NAL), Belur and later in the year 1991, he was shifted to NAL Guest House. Despite, he worked continuously since January 1988 till 15.01.2003, he has not been regularized by the respondent-Authority. Nevertheless, the respondent has not allowed him to work from 16.01.2003, though he left the NAL
Guest House on his volition. Hence, he approached the Tribunal in O.A.No.1029/2002 and the Tribunal allowed the application filed by the petitioner and directed the respondent to consider his case for regularization in terms of the Causal Worker Absorption Scheme of CSIR, 1995 within a period of four months from the date of said order. The said order has been challenged by the respondent before this Court in W.P.No.39316/2003 and the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, dismissed the writ petition filed by the respondent vide order dated 15.03.2005. Subsequently, the petitioner has made a representation to the respondent dated 18.03.2013 for fixation of pensionary benefits from the date of his initial appointment. The Controller of Administration of the respondent-authority forward the said representation to the Joint Secretary (Administration), New Delhi vide letter dated 28.03.2013. Consequently, the Section Officer of HR-II has made a correspondence to the Director of NAL on 13.05.2013. It is the grievance of the petitioner that no decision has been taken on the said representation as well as the correspondence referred above by the respondent. Hence, he once again approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.130/2023 and the Tribunal dismissed
NC: 2024:KHC:11047-DB WP No. 12430 of 2023
the application filed by the petitioner as stated supra. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.
counsel for the petitioner so also Sri H.Shanthi Bhushan, learned DSGI for the respondent and perused the material on record.
NC: 2024:KHC:11047-DB WP No. 12430 of 2023
ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.39316/2003. In spite of the same, the respondent-Authority is reluctant to take any decision which is against the settled principle of law. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.
D.C.S.NEGI vs. Union of India and others reported in
(2018) 16 SCC 721 and prays to dismiss the writ petition.
"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."
Authority on 18.03.2013 and the same has been approved by the Director on 27.03.2013. On 28.03.2013, the Senior controller of Administration forwarded the representation of the petitioner to the Joint Secretary (Administration) for counting past service rendered by the him in NAL on contract basis for the purpose calculating pensioray benefits. On 13.05.2013, a letter of the Joint Secretary (Administration) singed by the Section Officer was addressed to the Director, NAL. Thereafter, no decision has been taken on the said representation as well as the correspondence made thereon. Admittedly, the petitioner has not raised any grievance in respect of the same within a reasonable period, however, after a decade, he approached the Tribunal by filing Original Application. In such circumstances, as per provision under 19, the same is not maintainable. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment referred above, held in paragraphs 13 and 14 as under:
"13. A reading of the plain language of the above reproduced section makes it clear that the Tribunal cannot admit an application unless the same is made within the time specified in clauses (a) and (b) of Section 21(1) or Section 21(2) or an order is passed in terms of sub-section (3) for entertaining the application after the prescribed
period. Since Section 21(1) is couched in negative form, it is the duty of the Tribunal to first consider whether the application is within limitation. An application can be admitted only if the same is found to have been made within the prescribed period or sufficient cause is shown for not doing so within the prescribed period and an order is passed under Section 21(3).
14. In the present case, the Tribunal entertained and decided the application without even adverting to the issue of limitation. The learned counsel for the petitioner tried to explain this omission by pointing out that in the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, no such objection was raised but we have not felt impressed. In our view, the Tribunal cannot abdicate its duty to act in accordance with the statute under which it is established and the fact that an objection of limitation is not raised by the respondent/nonapplicant is not at all relevant.
ORDER
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
VM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal erred in dismissing the OA as time-barred under Section 21(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act despite no limitation objection by the respondent.
Whether the petitioner was entitled to pensionary benefits counting past contractual service under the Casual Worker Absorption Scheme of CSIR, 1995.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
D.C.S. Negi vs. Union of India and othersRelied on¶7
(2018) 16 SCC 721 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
H.S. Dattarreya
The Director, National Aerospace Laboratories
K. Somashekar
Rajesh Rai K
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
