IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 18772 of 2008. Date of Decision: 10.11.2008. Smt. Kamaljeet Raju ....Petitioner Versus The Central Administrative Tribunal & others. ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present : Mr. Vikas Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? HEMANT GUPTA. J. Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short the 'Tribunal') on October 5, 2006 holding that Original Application filed by the petitioner is barred by limitation. The claim of the petitioner is pro-rata pension for the services rendered by her with the respondents from 30.8.1995 to 2.6.1998. On June 2, 1998, the petitioner was given fresh appointment under Reserve Bank of India but her claim for termination benefits by the respondent, was declined before relieving the petitioner. It was thereafter, the petitioner has joined the Reserve Bank of India. It has been found that the application for claiming termination benefits is beyond the limitation as the cause of action accrued to the petitioner in the year 1998 itself. CWP No. 18772 of 2008. (2) We do not find that the order passed by the Tribunal suffers from any patent illegality or irregularity warranting interference in the writ jurisdiction by this Court. The petitioner has approached Tribunal after long lapse of time. The writ petition, is therefore, dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 10.11.2008. SN