THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.3742 OF 2000 20.10.2011 Between: T.Ranga Rao, S/o.T.Rama Chander Rao …. Petitioner AND The Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Telecommunication Department, New Delhi d 3 others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.3742 of 2000 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The petitioner assails the order dated 09.6.1999 in O.A.No.867 of 1998 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench whereby and whereunder the petitioner’s application seeking a direction to the respondents to reengage him in service as casual mazdoor and to grant him temporary status was rejected as time barred. There is no dispute that initially the petitioner was engaged as casual mazdoor in Telecom District, Eluru on 01.10.1985. From 21.3.1989 he was disengaged. He raised industrial dispute in July, 1989 and subsequently he withdrew the same. On 01.9.1991 he was reengaged but having regard to the pendency of criminal case being C.C.No.187 of 1992 on the file of the Court of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Amalapuram against him, he was terminated from service on 26.3.1992. He was acquitted in the criminal case. Therefore, he made representations on 18.6.1996 and 02.7.1997 requesting to reengage him as casual mazdoor. By an order dated 29.4.1998 his request was rejected. He therefore filed O.A. before the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal considered the question of limitation and came to the conclusion that when the petitioner made representation on 18.6.1997, he ought to have filed O.A. on or before 17.12.1997 i.e., within one year and after expiry of six months from the date of the impugned order, but he did not do so. The Tribunal also considered the question of conferment of temporary status and found that in the absence of any proof that he has completed 240 days of service, he cannot be granted temporary status. In this writ petition filed against the order of the Tribunal, the Counsel mainly contends that when the petitioner was terminated as casual mazdoor on the ground of pendency of criminal case, he ought to have been reengaged and granted temporary status, after his acquittal. We are afraid we cannot accept the submission. The petitioner was admittedly engaged as casual mazdoor. He worked from 01.10.1985 to 20.3.1989 with intermittent breaks as found by the Tribunal. When he was terminated because of pendency of criminal case, he did not raise any objection. He was acquitted in the criminal case. He made representation on 18.6.1996. He waited for a long period in approaching the Tribunal. Therefore the O.A. is barred by limitation. Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is relevant and reads as under. 21. Limitation (1) A Tribunal shall not admit an application, a) in a case where a final order such as is mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 20 has been made in connection with the grievance unless the application is made, within one year from the date on which such final order has been made; b) in a case where an appeal or representation such as is mentioned in clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 20 has been made and a period of six months had expired thereafter without such final order having been made, within one year from the date of expiry of the said period of six months. A Constitution Bench of seven Judges of the Supreme Court in S.S.Rathore v Union of India[1] considered this aspect of the matter and held as under. It is appropriate to notice the provision regarding limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act. Sub-section (1) has prescribed a period of one year for making of the application and power of condonation of delay of a total period of six months has been vested under sub-section (3). The civil court's jurisdiction has been taken away by the Act and, therefore, as far as government servants are concerned, Article 58 may not be invocable in view of the special limitation. Yet, suits outside the purview of the Administrative Tribunals Act shall continue to be governed by Article 58. It is proper that the position in such cases should be uniform. Therefore, in every such case only when the appeal or representation provided by law is disposed of, cause of action shall first accrue and where such order is not made, on the expiry of six months from the date when the appeal was filed or representation was made, the right to sue shall first accrue. Submission of just a memorial or representation to the head of the establishment shall not be taken into consideration in the matter of fixing limitation. After reviewing the order of the Tribunal impugned in the writ petition, we are convinced that the same is in accordance with the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court. There are no reasons to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ___________________ (K.G.SHANKAR, J) October 20, 2011 YS [1] (1989) 4 SCC 582 : AIR 1990 SC 10