* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 15727/2006 VERSHA KALRA ..... Petitioner Through Mr. S.P. Chadha, Advocate. versus UOI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through Mr. H.K. Gangwani, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA O R D E R % 01.05.2008 1. The petitioner was appointed as a Teacher under the Hindi Teaching Scheme on 21st April, 1975. She was given regular appointment on 19th March, 1980. She retired in 2003. 2. The petitioner claims that the period between 21st April, 1975 till 19th March, 1980 should be taken into consideration for grant of Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACP, for short), seniority and pension and the said period has been wrongly treated as a period during which the petitioner was on adhoc appointment. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in fact the petitioner was appointed as temporary Hindi Teacher and the respondents are wrongly treating the said appointment as ad hoc. 3. The petitioner prior to filing of the present Petition had filed a Original Petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal being O.A. No. 2137/2005 for similar reliefs. This was disposed of on 3rd July, 2006. Learned Tribunal referred to Section 21(2)(a) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short). Section 21 of the Act prescribes period of limitation for filing of an application. As is clear from the cause title of the certified copy of the Order dated 3rd July, 2006 passed by the learned Tribunal, the said Petition was filed in the year 2005 after the petitioner had retired in 2003. The learned Tribunal has recorded that the relief for reckoning the period of service from 29th April, 1975 to 31st March, 1980 as regular period was based on the foundation of applicant’s service during the said period and this takes the case out of the jurisdiction of the learned Tribunal. Ld. Tribunal was therefore of the opinion that the petition is barred by limitation. Under Section 21(2)(a) of the Act, the period of limitation prescribed is six months immediately after the date on which jurisdiction, power and authority of the Tribunal becomes exercisable. 4. After the provision of Section 21(2)(a) of the Act was referred to, learned counsel for the petitioner, who had appeared before the Administrative Tribunal, sought permission and was allowed to withdraw the Original Application with liberty to approach an appropriate forum. 5. The petitioner, thereafter, has filed the present Writ Petition claiming the same relief. The petitioner faces the same problem and difficulty in the present Writ Petition filed in 2006. The present Writ Petition is bad for laches and undue delay in respect of the claim for the period between 21st April, 1975 to 19th March, 1980 is concerned. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the right to get correct pension is a continuing cause of action and therefore the petitioner should be granted relief to this extent. I may note here that similar argument was available to the petitioner before the Administrative Tribunal. Moreover, if the plea of the petitioner is accepted, then the petitioner is required to approach Administrative Tribunal in terms of Section 14 of the Act and she cannot directly file a writ petition in this Court. In either case, the petitioner cannot be granted any relief by the writ Court. Whether or not the petitioner should and can file another petition before the Tribunal, is left open. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. SANJIV KHANNA, J. MAY 01, 2008. P/VKR