IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 26183 of 2007 Between: Mallam Balakrishna, S/o. M. Ramaswamy, Employees' Provident Fund Organisation, Sub Regional Office, Rajahmundry and Resident of Rajahmundry ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Union of India, Rep by the Secretary to Government Ministry of labour, Shram Shakti Bhavan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi - 110 001. 2 The Addl. Central Provident Fund Commissioner (HR) Employees' Provident Fund Organization, Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India, Bhavishyanidhi Bhavan, 14, Bahikaiji Cam Place, New Delhi - 110 066 3 The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Employees' Provident Fund Organization, Regional Office, 3-4-763, Barkatpura, Hyderabad. 4 The Officer-in-charge, Sub Regional Office Employees' Provident Fund Organization, Marripalem, VUDA Layout, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, examine the records relating to order dated 30-9-1999 passed in AP/ADMN/VIG/D-380/99/668 OF Regional Provident Fund Commissiner, A.P. Hyderabad and the Appellate Authority order dated 25-9-2000, Addl. Central Provident Fund Commissiner (South Zone) Hyderabad, and the orders passed in Review Application 78 of 2003, MA No. 320 of 2003 in OASR No. 1354 of 2003 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad and declae that orders are contrary to law, lack of Judicial enquiry and offends Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of india, set aside the same, and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all back wages and continuity of service without any break in service, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.BATHULA VENKATESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No: MR.B.NARASIMHA SARMA The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. W.P.No.26183 of 2007 Oral Order: ( Per Sri GM, J ) This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the orders passed in Review Application No.78 of 2003 in MA No.320 of 2003 in O.A.SR. No.1354 of 2003 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad. The petitioner was working as Upper Division Clerk in Employees’ Provident Fund Organization, Sub Regional Office, Rajahmundry and that the petitioner suffered punishment of compulsory retirement on the charges of plural marriage by the disciplinary and appellate authorities. The petitioner thereafter approached the Tribunal, along with delay condonation application ( MA No.320 of 2003 in OA SR No.1354 of 2003 ) contending that he could not prefer the O.A. within the stipulated time due to financial constraint. The Tribunal dismissed the delay condonation application by its order 29-8-2003 and consequently the O.A. was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Review Application No.78 of 2003 seeking to review the order dated 29-8-2003 dismissing the delay condonation application and the same was also dismissed by the Tribunal. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, and on consideration of the material available on record, we are of the view that as substantial rights of the petitioner are involved, closing the fate of the petitioner while dismissing the condone delay petition and the review application may not be proper. It appears, the Tribunal has taken up the review application by circulation and not by hearing the parties, which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner is contrary to the Rules. The Tribunal ought to have taken a lenient view of the matter and condoned the delay and entertained the O.A. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 5-12- 2003 passed in RA No.78 of 2003 in MA No.320 of 2003 in OASR No.1354 of 2004 by the Tribunal is set aside, directing the Tribunal to entertain the O.A. and decide it on merits, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. _______ GM, J _______ CVR, J Date: 16-7-2008 KK