Dismissed

R.Karnan v. Union of India

Madras HC14 Jun 2024WP/10485/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the CAT's dismissal of his application for appointment as Civil Motor Driver on grounds of limitation. The High Court held that the application was not maintainable as it was filed after a lapse of ten years, effectively seeking indirect implementation of an earlier order without pursuing the specific remedy for non-compliance within the limitation period. The writ petiti

What the court decided

AI extract

R.Karnan Vs Union of India — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

WP No.10485 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 14.06.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶8

WP No.10485 of 2020

R.Karnan

: Petitioner

versus

1.Union of India, Represented by its Chief Naval Staff, Naval Head Quarters, New Delhi-110 001.

¶13

2.Flag Officer Commanding in Chief, HQ Eastern Naval Command and Naval Base, Visakhapatnam.

¶14

3.The Naval Officer in Charge, Area Office, Chennai-600 009.

¶15

4.Central Administrative Tribunal-Chennai Bench Additional City Civil Court Building, High Court Campus, Chennai-600 104. : Respondents

¶16

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

¶17

1/8

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

WP No.10485 of 2020

¶20

for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified mandamus, call for the records of the impugned order dated 29.11.2019 passed by the fourth respondent in OA No.1511 of 2019 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 12.01.2019 in the light of the order passed by the Tribunal in OA No.616 of 2004 dated 07.05.2009.

¶21

For the Petitioner : Mr.D.Muthukumar

¶22

for M/s.J.Hudson Samuel and Partners

¶23

For the Respondents : Mr.Ramesh

¶24

fourth respondent-Tribunal

¶25

ORDER

¶26

(Order of the Court was made by D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.)

¶27

The writ petition is filed challenging the order passed in OA No.1511 of 2019 dated 29.11.2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench and consequently, direct the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 12.01.2019 in the light of the order passed by the Tribunal in OA No.616 of 2004 dated 07.05.2009.

¶28

The writ petitioner/applicant had filed original application in OA

¶29

2/8

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

WP No.10485 of 2020

¶32

No.1511 of 2019 seeking for a direction to the respondents to consider his representation dated 12.01.2019 in the light of the order passed by the Tribunal in OA No.616 of 2004 dated 07.05.2009 and appoint him as Civil Motor Driver. The Tribunal, by order dated 29.11.2019, dismissed the said original application on the ground of limitation. Challenging the said order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has earlier filed original application in OA No.616 of 2004 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench and by order dated 07.05.2009, the Tribunal had directed the respondents to consider the petitioner for appointment as a Civilian Motor Driver, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Thereafter, the petitioner has made a representation dated 12.01.2019 to the respondents for implementation of the earlier order passed by the Tribunal in OA No.616 of 2004 dated 07.05.2009. Since the same was not considered, the petitioner filed the instant original application. However, the Tribunal dismissed the said application and the reasons stated by the Tribunal is totally incorrect and

¶34

3/8

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

WP No.10485 of 2020

¶37

unsustainable. This Court may consider that the petitioner has already approached the Tribunal and also obtained favourable orders to consider the petitioner for appointment to the post of Civilian Motor Driver. The delay is only on the part of the respondents to comply the said order passed by the Tribunal and therefore, he seeks to allow the writ petition, directing the respondents to comply the earlier order passed by the Tribunal in OA No.616 of 2004 dated 07.05.2009 and pass appropriate orders.

¶38

The third respondent has filed counter affidavit, wherein it is stated

¶39

that the said application is not maintainable for the reason that the said original application is barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act.

¶40

Learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3

¶41

submits that the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the said application. Therefore, nothing warrants to interfere with the order of the Tribunal.

¶42

Heard the parties and perused the materials available on record.

¶43

4/8

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

WP No.10485 of 2020

¶46

The short point involved in the writ petition is whether the original application in OA No.1511 of 2019 filed before Tribunal is maintainable and the same is within limitation period.

¶47

The contention raised in the writ petition is that the petitioner has earlier filed OA No.616 of 2004 before the Tribunal and the Tribunal, by order dated 07.05.2009, has directed the respondents to consider his request for appointment to the post of Civil Motor Driver, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of that Order. However, the petitioner has slept over the matter for over ten years and suddenly woke up and approached the authority concerned by way of filing a representation seeking to implement the order of the Tribunal in OA No.616 of 2004. Thereafter, he approached the Tribunal in the instant Original Application in OA No.1511 of 2019 seeking for implementation of the earlier order of the Tribunal by considering the said representation of the petitioner. The Tribunal has stated that the petitioner is indirectly seeking implementation of earlier order passed in the aforesaid OA No.616 of 2004. Therefore, the

¶48

5/8

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶50

WP No.10485 of 2020

¶51

Tribunal has rightly came to the conclusion that the said original application cannot be entertained and rejected the same as it was not maintainable as per Section 21 of the CAT Act.

¶52

When the petitioner was having remedy under the provisions of the CAT Act, for non-compliance of the said order of the Tribunal, the petitioner ought to have approached the Tribunal within the limitation period for taking necessary action for non compliance of the said order of the Tribunal. Without resorting to such remedy within the time period, he has filed the present Original application in OA No.1511 of 2019, after a lapse of ten years, which is not at all maintainable. Therefore, we came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as sought for in the writ petition. Consequently, we are confirming the order passed in OA No.1511 of 2019 dated 29.11.2019. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶53

[D.K.K., J.] [K.B., J.] 14.06.2024 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No mrn To 1.The Chief Naval Staff, 6/8

¶54

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶55

WP No.10485 of 2020

¶56

Naval Head Quarters, New Delhi-110 001.

¶57

2.The Flag Officer Commanding in Chief, HQ Eastern Naval Command and Naval Base, Visakhapatnam.

¶58

3.The Naval Officer in Charge, Area Office, Chennai-600 009.

¶59

4.Central Administrative Tribunal-Chennai Bench Additional City Civil Court Building, High Court Campus, Chennai-600 104.

¶60

7/8

¶61

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶62

WP No.10485 of 2020

¶63

D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J. and K.KUMARESH BABU, J.

¶64

(mrn)

¶65

WP No.10485 of 2020

¶66

14.06.2024

¶67

8/8

¶68

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

R.Karnan v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

R.Karnan v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

E.Arasu Vs The Chief Engineer

A.Ramasami Vs S.G.Perumal

The Ex-Officio Secretary to Vs M.Duraisamy

The Principal General Manager Vs P.S.Jailani

N. Asaithambi Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

R.Shantha Kumari Vs Union of India