Anita Das V. Union Of India Through The General Manager And Ors

WPC/7646/2017

AI Insights

The case involves Anita Das, who filed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of her mother's service by the South Eastern Railway in 1999, which was allegedly communicated to her only in 2002. The petitioner sought to convert the removal order into an order of compulsory retirement and demanded settlement dues and consideration for compassionate appointment. The C.A.T dismissed the application due to inordinate delay and lack of merit, a decision which was upheld by the High Court. The court noted the absence of a condonation of delay application and found the petitioner's claims of minority and lack of knowledge at the time of dismissal unconvincing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 731932 (HC-JHARKHAND)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 05-01-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Mundrika Prasad Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors., M/s. Marwari Stores, Dehri Vs. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar, Patna-1
• Laws Referred To: Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: GAUTAM RAKESH
• Assessee Lawyers: M M PAL
• Keywords: Compassionate appointment; Condonation of delay; Mental illness; Removal from service
• Section: 21

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (S) No. 7646 of 2017 Anita Das .... Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India, through the General Manager, South Eastern Railway, Garden Reach, Kolkata-43. 2. Divisional Railway Manager, CKP Division, Chakradharpur, Dist.-Singhbhum (West). 3. Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer (OPTG), S.E. Railway, CKP Division, Dist.-Singhbhum (West) 4. Divisional Operating Manager, S.E. Railway, CKP Division, Chakradharpur, Dist.-Singhbhum (West) … Respondents ---- CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan --- For the Petitioner : Mrs. M.M.Pal, Sr. Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Gautam Rakesh, Advocate --- 05/03.01.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned Central Administrative Tribunal (C.A.T), Circuit Bench at Ranchi by the impugned order dated 20th September, 2016 passed in O.A. No. 051/00202/2016, dismissed the original application holding as under: “4. We have heard the parties and perused the record. This is an admitted position that mother of the applicant was removed from service in the year 1999, which, as per the contention of the applicant, she came to know in the year 2002. Even then, after 10 years, she approached before the authority in the year 2012 and approached this Tribunal in the year 2016. That too, without filing any application for condonation of delay. Moreover, with regard to the consideration of her case in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court, it is noted that the Hon’ble High Court has passed the said order on the fact of that very case and has not given any finding on the law point. However, in the instant case, the applicant has approached this Tribunal after a lapse of 14 years. Admittedly, the mother of the applicant was not on duty from 1996 onwards till her death. Even, this is not her case that they had informed the respondents about so called mental illness of her mother. Therefore, we do not find any reason to entertain this application at this point of time. 5. Accordingly, the O.A is dismissed being hopelessly barred by limitation as well as being devoid of merit at admission stage itself with no order as to costs.” 2. Applicant has moved the learned C.A.T for the following reliefs: A) The so called removal order dated 13.08.1999 informed only in the year 2003 (not served till date) be set arise or to modify converts to an order of compulsory retirement with all consequential benefits. B) The Respondents be directed to pay the settlement dues of deceased to the petitioner within a specified period. 2. C) The Respondents be directed not to discriminate the petitioner and to pay all the legal dues to the petitioner with interest without any further delay. D) The Respondents be directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for her employment on compassionate ground in terms of the Railway circular and to pass the final order within a stipulated period. 3. As per the petitioner, her mother was suffering from mental illness from 5th October, 1996, as certified by Dr. Ashok Kumar Nag while she was regular employee of the Respondents posted as Peon, CYM/TATA. She was under regular treatment at G.R.C Railway Hospital till 19th March, 2002 when she was informed orally that she has been removed from service from 13th August, 1999. 4. Learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner being minor could not approach the Court for the reliefs within time, though the grounds were duly explained in the original application. She further submits that no order of removal has been served upon the petitioner. It is further submitted that this Court in the case of Mundrika Prasad Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. [L.P.A No. 30 of 2008] vide judgment dated 22nd October, 2008, has been pleased to allow the challenge to removal of service of the appellant passed in the year 1983 and converted it into an order of compulsory retirement on the ground of his mental illness. It is further submitted that the petitioner had been making representations from time to time and acknowledgement of representation is Annexure-4 dated 13th January, 2012. In such circumstances, learned Tribunal has wrongly dismissed the original application, though the respondents failed to serve copy of the removal order. They had not only followed the procedure for removal from service but had also denied all lawful claims to the petitioner. As such, the impugned order may be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a decision passed in the case of M/s. Marwari Stores, Dehri Vs,. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar, Patna-1 reported in 1995(1) PLJR 639, in support of plea that separate application for condonation of delay in such a case is not required. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made a prayer that the order of removal may be brought on record by the respondent. 3. 5. Learned counsel for the Respondent-Railways has opposed the prayer. It is submitted that the petitioner was aged 33 years in the year 2017 as per her own affidavit and as such she was a major in the year 2002. Therefore, the plea of minority cannot be taken for raising such a belated claim. Moreover, the prayer in O.A was not accompanied by any application for condonation of delay, as is required under the provisions of Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, nor any plausible explanation was given. 6. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties in the light of the facts and documents borne from the records and also perused the impugned order. We have also gone through the decision at Annexure -6 cited on behalf of the petitioner. The instant case arises from original application filed in the year 2016 seeking quashing of the order of removal dated 13th August, 1999 or to convert it into an order of compulsory retirement with further directions to pay the settlement dues of the deceased to the petitioner and also consider her claim for compassionate appointment in terms of Railway Circular. Petitioner has herself averred before learned C.A.T and also before this Court that her mother was removed from service on 13th August, 1999, which was informed in the year 2002. In terms of Section 21 of Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, if the cause of action is not raised within a period of one year from the date of his removal, the applicant has to explain the delay and seek condonation thereof by filing miscellaneous application. Learned C.A.T has noticed that no such application was filed for condonation of delay for about 14 years in preferring the original application, though the applicant was aware of removal of her mother from service in the year 2002. It further appears that the plea of minority is also not tenable in view of the fact that on the date of filing of this writ petition on 20th December, 2017, petitioner was aged 33 years and would have been major in the year 2002 itself. It further appears that the decision of Mundrika Prasad Singh (Supra) has been passed in a matter arising out of the judgment passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in the peculiar facts of that case. From para 5 of the present writ application and also on perusal of the impugned order where the reliefs have been quoted, it does not appear that any such prayer to call for the records 4. relating to passing of order of removal were made by the applicant, nor such prayer has been made in the pleadings of the present writ petition. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, we do not find any perversity in the order passed by learned C.A.T to interfere in the exercise of our writ jurisdiction Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J) (Deepak Roshan, J) Jk/ "