The Patna High Court dismissed this Civil Writ petition by the petitioner, a daily wager, challenging the dismissal of his O.A. before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the claim was barred by Section 21 of the relevant Act due to limitations and found no merit in the present application.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7474 of 2009
=========================================================== Shiv Nandan Paswan, son of Sri Bisheshwar Paswan, resident of village and P.O. – Karnauti, P.S. – Bakhtiyarpur, District – Patna. .... .... Petitioner
Versus
.... .... Respondent
===========================================================
Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Shanti Kumar For the Respondent : Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Pandey, SCG II Mr. Ravinder Kumar Sharma (CGC)
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH And HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH)
Date: 28-07-2015
We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner who was applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna and learned counsel for the respondents.
The petitioner had filed O.A. No. 580/1997 which was dismissed on 18.02.1998 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (in short the “Tribunal”) on the ground that, in the application, petitioner had challenged the order of his termination
Patna High Court CWJC No.7474 of 2009 dt.28-07-2015
2
dated 25.07.1990 serving as daily wager in the year 1997, and as such, the claim was barred in terms of Section 21 of the Act. The Tribunal also noticed that the applicant had moved O.A. before the Tribunal in 1996, but, withdrew the same. He had then even moved to Industrial Disputes Tribunal without success.
In our considered view, the Tribunal has not erred in not entertaining his application. We, therefore, find no merit in this application. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)
(Nilu Agrawal, J.)
Rajeev/N.F.A.R.
U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the claim of the petitioner for termination compensation and/or damages is time-barred under Section 21 of the relevant Act.
Whether the Petitioner should be allowed to challenge the dismissal order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in this writ petition.
Shiv Nandan Paswan
The Union of India
Navaniti Prasad Singh
Nilu Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
