Petitioner Versus Respondents 1. Union of lndia, Through Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Raii Bhawan, New Delhi. Divisional Railway Manager, SECR, Nagpur (Maharashtva) Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, SECR Nagpur (MS) , Chief Personnel Officer. South Eastern Centrai Railway, Bilaspur (CG) Divisional Railway Manager (Personnel), SECR, Ralpur (CG) Present : Shri Anand Dadariya, counsel for the petitioner. Shrl Abhishek Sinha, counsel for the respondenls. mbwN- DRAL ORDER (7m February, 201 1) Per Dhr'mndm Mishra .I The petitioner is posted as Junior Engineer-ll, Diesel Loco Shed under South East Central Railway, Raipur. His representation for reconsideration of his claims dated 26.2.2009 regarding House Rent Allowance, Traveling Allowance, Transfer Allowance. City Compensation Allowance etc. was reiected vide order dated 25.3.2009 (Annexure A/1) and his original application against the order of respondent No.2 has been further dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal by the impugned order as barred by limitation under Section 19(3) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (in short "the Act"). 02 Shri Dadariya. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from perusal of the order of Annexure N1. it would be evident that his representation was reconsidered and rejected by respondent No.2. Since his representation was pending before the concerned authorities and the same was reiected on 25.3.2009 after reconsideration, a fresh cause of action arose to the petitioner to tile original application before the Tribunal and thus, the Tfibunal was not justified in dismissing the application as barred by ) l M9 limitation. He further submits that in any case, the dispute pertaining to treating the period of work, between 31.3.2005 and 2.5.2005 i.e. tom! 33 days, as Leave Without Pay was never considered while his earlier representation was rejected on 5.4.2007 and the same was again not considered on the ground that his applications dated 5.4.2005, 11.7.2005, 14.9.2007 and 10.1.2008 for the aforesaid relief are not available in the office. However, from perusal of the document of Annexure P13, A/16 and A/1 7. it would be evident that the applications were duly filed by the petitioner before the concerned authorities. 03. On the other hand, Shri Abhishek Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the Railways, submim that the Tribunal in the impugned order, relying upon the decision of the Constitution Bench in the matters of SS Rsthore’s, reported in AIR 1990 SC 10, has categorically held that claim of the applicant was rejected on 5.4.2007; the period of limitation cannot be extended by making successive representations; OA was med on 18.8.2009 i.e. after more than two years from 5.4.2007 when the cause of action arose to the petitioner, without filing any application for condonation of delay; and in these circumstances. the application was hopelessly barred by limitation, and the same has been accordingly dismissed under Section 19(3) of the Act. 04. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 05. From perusal of the order of Annexure N1, it is evident that claim of the petitioner was earlier rejected vide communication dated 5.4.2007. The petitioner, instead of challenging the aforesaid order, again made a representation reiterating his claims before respondent No.2. So far as contention of the petitioner that his claim to convert his period of absence of 33 days between 31 .32005 and 2.5.2005 into LWP is concerned, the above claim has not been rejected and the petitioner has been directed to tile ‘ appropriate application for the same so that appropriate action could be taken on that, vide Annexure A/1. D6. Learned Tribunal has dismissed the original application by the impugned order under Section 19(3) of the Act with an observation that the petitioner, instead of challenging the communication dated 5.4.2007, made another representation for settling his claims. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the mattes of SS Rathore, it has been observed that it is well settled law that successive unsuccessful representations do not *\ 7 i extend the period of iimitation. The above finding of the Tribunal is strictly in accordance with law and based on facts. There is no subsmnce in this petition. the same deserves to be and is, accordingiy. dismissed. e i fi/ p Sd/" i w M ' Dhireadra Mishr i few“ - Judge 77 ‘ _ WWW i wage gerww i E Rl‘i Chimij‘wker ; i i i vi a