Allowed

Bhikari Charan Das v. Union of Ind.andORS.

Orissa HC25 Mar 2021WP(C)/8816/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court condoned the delay in filing an original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal due to the petitioner's mental disorder. The writ petition challenged the Tribunal's dismissal of the application as delayed. The Court set aside the impugned order, emphasizing substantive justice over technical limitation, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration on merits.

What did the court decide?

Writ application allowed; impugned order of the Tribunal set aside; matter remanded for fresh consideration on merits.

Bhikari Charan Das Vs Union of Ind.andORS. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.(C) No.8816 of 2012

¶2

Sri Bhikari Charan Das ..... Petitioner. Vrs.

¶3

Union of India & Others. ..... Opposite Parties.

¶4

03. 25.03.2021

¶5

This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

¶6

Heard Mr. S. C. Samantray, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for opposite party No.1-Railway.

¶7

In this petition, the former employee of the Railways has assailed the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack dated 10.04.2012 dismissing the original application of the petitioner registered as O.A. No.251 of 2010.

¶8

Mr. A. K. Mishra, learned counsel submits that there is inordinate delay in filing the original application. He drew the attention of the Court to Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 which provides a limitation of one year.

¶9

However, we note that the opposite parties who were opposite parties before the tribunal have not filed any separate written objection to the application for condonation of delay which was registered as M.A. No.268 of 2010.

¶10

A careful examination of the impugned order reveals that the original application has been dismissed mainly on the ground of delay.

¶11

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was suffering from mental disorder and was under the treatment of Dr. Gopal Chandra Kar, (Psychiatrist), SCB Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack from 15.01.1997 to 13.07.1998. After his recovery from

¶12

illness, although he reported for duty before the Dy. C.M.E.(Proj.) (C & W), South Eastern Railway, Kharagpur on 20.07.1988 along with all the medical certificates, but he was not allowed to join and was informed that a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him for his unauthorized absence from duty. This has ultimately culminated with a punishment of removal from service by Dy. CME(Proj.) L No. WLE/2602 of 2006 w.e.f. 24.12.1997.

¶13

Admittedly, the case of the petitioner is that he was suffering from mental disorder so there is a delay in preferring the original application.

¶14

Keeping in view the nature of prayer he has made and that the livelihood and future of the petitioner depends upon the result of the original application, we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the O.A.

¶15

We also consider it appropriate to state that when a technical question is pitted against a substantial question of law or substantive question of imparting justice then the substantive consideration should out weigh the technical consideration. A meritorious matter should not be dismissed on the question of limitation when the petitioner has approached the Court after some delay but there is some reasonable cause which prevented him from coming to the court promptly.

¶16

We, therefore, allow the writ application and set aside the order of the order dated 10.04.2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack and remand the matter back to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack for fresh consideration.

¶17

The parties are directed to appear before the learned tribunal on 22.04.2021 along with certified copy of the order with a prayer to restore the case to file and take up the case. On such event, the learned tribunal shall call for the file in O.A. No.251 of 2010 after hearing the parties dispose of the same on merit expeditiously.

¶18

Certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶19

..………………………. S.K.Mishra, J.

¶20

…..……………………… Savitri Ratho, J.

¶21

Prasant

Bhikari Charan Das v. Union of Ind.andORS.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhikari Charan Das v. Union of Ind.andORS.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Ofdc Ltd. Vs Laxmidhar Pradhan

Monalisha Khuntia Vs State of Odisha

Pitambar Adbong Vs State of Odisha

Narayan Bhoi Vs Surendra Kumar

State and Ors. Vs Kausalya Behera

Bansidhar Jena Vs Prasanta Kumar Jena