THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.No.26350 of 2009 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar) This writ petitioner seeks to challenge the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, dismissing M.A.No.445 of 2009 in O.A.S.R.No.2404 of 2009, dated 23-10-2009. The petitioner had filed O.A.S.R. along with an application seeking condonation of delay of three years ten months and ten days. The only averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the said condonation are as follows:- “I humbly submit that I have submitted my representation for voluntary retirement on 16-11-1995 and the respondents even after repeated representation did not consider the same and then I approached this Hon’ble Tribunal by filing O.A.No.642 of 2003 and the same was disposed of on 23-08-2004. I have been waiting that the matter will be considered by the respondents in accordance with the rules and in pursuance of the orders of this Hon’ble Tribunal. However, suddenly after the disposal of the O.A. they have changed their entire contentions. The respondents have rejected my case on 03-11-2004 received by me on 15-11-2004. In the mean while due to long illness and poverty I could not approach this Hon’ble Tribunal within time. I had to come before this Hon’ble Tribunal by on or before 15-11-2005, however due to the state of financial incapacitation and illness I could not approach this Hon’ble Tribunal in time. Hence, the delay of 3 years 8 months and 24 days in filing this application and the delay is neither wanton nor deliberate but for on the above said reasons.” It would be immediately noticed that the aforesaid application is very vague and no documents are filed in support thereof. Under the impugned order, the Tribunal found that there is no sufficient cause mentioned and no document is filed in support of any of the allegations thereof. The Tribunal, therefore, dismissed the said application. Questioning the aforesaid order, the present writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had taken treatment from a private doctor and as such could not produce the medical certificate. He also submits that on merits the petitioner has a good case and he is only seeking voluntary retirement. The contentions of the learned counsel however cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the first contention now raised herein is not mentioned either in the affidavit or has been argued before the Tribunal. Secondly, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is governed by Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and when the limitation for filing application before the Tribunal has expired long back, in the absence of any sufficient cause or justification shown by the petitioner, the Tribunal was right in declining to entertain the said application seeking condonation of delay. The length of the delay is quite large, but the same has not been explained, therefore, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the said application. While exercising our certiorari jurisdiction, we are not able to discern any error warranting correction. The writ petition, therefore, is devoid of merits and is accordingly, dismissed. However, it shall not preclude the petitioner from approaching the Tribunal by filing appropriate application, duly explaining the reasons in support of the application for condonation, if he is so advised. In the event of the petitioner approaching the Tribunal again with an appropriate application as mentioned above, the Tribunal would entertain the same in accordance with law and deal with the same accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J ________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Date: 03-12-2009 Prv