[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5137 OF 2008 GOVERDHAN LAL GAYARI VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Date of Order: April 21, 2010 HON'BLE SHRI AM KAPADIA,J. HON'BLE SHRI GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS,J. Petitioner present in person. Mr. Vipul Singhvi on behalf of Mr. V.K. Mathur for UOI. O R D E R ----- BY THE COURT : In this writ petition filed under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the validity of the judgment dated 15th September 2006 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in Original Application No.16/2005 with Misc. Application No.03/2005. As per contention of the petitioner-applicant, he was given temporary charge of EDMC post in post office situated in village Semal, Tehsil Nathdwara, District [2] Rajsamand on 06.06.2001 upon which he continued to discharge his duties and subsequently an order dated 6th January 2003 came to be passed by which the persons who had been engaged without approval of the competent authority were ordered to be terminated from service with immediate effect. The petitioner preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.357/03 in this Court wherein an order was passed on 19th September 2003 whereby the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to to file an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal within a period of 10 days. The petitioner applicant did not file the Original Application as per liberty granted by the High Court within 10 days and petitioner-applicant filed Original Application before Tribunal on 7th January 2005 alongwith Misc. Application No.03/2005 for condonation of delay. The learned Tribunal dismissed the OA while following judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Ramesh Chandra Sharma Vs. Udham Singh Kamal & Ors. (ATJ 2000 Volume 1 SC 178) in which Hon’ble Apex Court held [3] that until the hurdle of limitation is crossed, the Tribunal has no power to adjudicate upon the merits of any case and in this matter admittedly the order impugned was issued on 6th January 2003 and as per Sec. 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the Original Application ought to have been filed by 5th January 2004, however, the petitioner preferred writ petition before High Court in the year 2003 and same was registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.357/03 but was dismissed as withdrawn to file an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal within 10 days from 19th September 2003, therefore, OA was to be filed within 10 days but petitioner applicant preferred application on 7th January 2005 after delay of 1 year and three months. In the judgment impugned in this petition the learned Tribunal found that there is no reasonable explanation or sufficient reason are on record to condone delay caused due to sufficient reasons. We have perused the impugned order dated 15th September 2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur. Learned Tribunal observed in the order that after dismissal of the [4] writ petition filed before the High Court, petitioner was to file Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal within 10 days from 19th September 2003 but petitioner preferred OA on 7th January 2005 without sufficient reasons and reasonable explanation after one year and three months, therefore, in our opinion, no error has been committed by the Tribunal while dismissing the OA on the ground that OA has been filed beyond limitation prescribed under Sec.21 of the Act. Hence, there is no force in this writ petition because order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal is perfectly in accordance with law. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS),J. ( A.M. KAPADIA ),J. jpa/