1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.5268 OF 2008 (Vinayak Murlidharrao Kamalakar vs. State and others) ___________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : JANUARY 14, 2009 Heard Shri Gaikwad, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Mrs. Bodade, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. The petition is directed against the order dated 17.1.2008 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal whereby Original Application No.513/2007 filed by the petitioner came to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches. Shri Gaikwad, learned Counsel for the petitioner, states that though petitioner had submitted resignation with effect from 1.7.1993 from the post of Aval Karkun, which was a conditional resignation and not to be acted upon. It is contended that from the year 1993 till 2007, the petitioner submitted various applications and representations to the 2 respondents. However, since there was no positive response from the respondents, petitioner finally filed original application in the year 2007 for redressal of his grievance before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, which was rejected vide impugned order on the ground of delay of more then 10 years to approach the Tribunal after cause of action arose. Shri Gaikwad, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that since petitioner was making representations for all these years and respondents failed to consider the claim of the petitioner, this is the legitimate cause to condone the delay and, therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have dismissed the original application on the ground of delay and laches. In order to substantiate the contentions, reliance is placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy {(1998) 7 SCC 123) and S.S. Rathore v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1990 SC 10). Mrs. Bodade, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents, states that for filing original application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, limitation prescribed is of one year and in case a representation is made by the candidate, limitation would start after expiry of six months from the date of submission of such 3 representation and the candidate has to approach the Tribunal within six months from the said date. It is contended that the petitioner approached the Tribunal after about fourteen years from the date when cause of action arose and, therefore, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the original application on the ground of delay and laches. We have considered the rival contentions canvassed by the respective Counsel for the parties and perused the above referred decisions of the Apex Court. There is no quarrel with the law laid down by the Apex Court in the above referred decisions. It is well settled that rights of the parties are required to be decided after proper adjudication and should not be permitted to be diminished on the basis of technical procedural formalities, such as limitation, etc. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that cause of action arose way back in the year 1993 and the petitioner approached the Tribunal after expiry of fourteen years. The limitation prescribed under the provisions of the Administrative Tribunal Act expired long ago. It is no doubt true that petitioner submitted representations/applications before the competent Authority for redressal of his grievance. However, such exercise cannot be permitted to be continued indefinitely for number of years. At the 4 same time, this also cannot be treated to be a sufficient cause which had prevented the petitioner from approaching the Tribunal within the limitation prescribed under the Act or within the reasonable time. In the circumstances, no case is made out by the petitioner to show indulgence in the petition. In the present petition, the petitioner has also challenged the communication dated 20.6.2008 issued by the State Government whereby application submitted by the petitioner for grant of pension under Rule 23 read with Rule 101 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 came to be rejected. Shri Gaikwad, learned Counsel for the petitioner, states that the Tribunal though rejected the original application on the ground of delay and laches, however, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal gave liberty to the petitioner to apply to the State Government for grant of special pension and the State Government was asked to consider the said application in the light of the above referred provisions of the Pension Rules. It is submitted that the State Government did not take into consideration either provisions of Rules 23 and 101 of the Pension Rules or directions issued by the Tribunal and rejected the application of the petitioner only in view of provisions of Rule 46(1) of the Pension Rules. It 5 is contended that the impugned communication may be quashed and set aside. Mrs. Bodade, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents, states that application of the petitioner for grant of special pension came to be rejected by the Government in view of provisions of Rule 46(1) of the Pension Rules. So far as issue regarding grant of special pension is concerned, perusal of the observations of the Tribunal in para (22) of the order dated 17.1.2008 shows that petitioner was given liberty to make an application to the State Government for grant of special pension under Rule 23 read with Rule 101 of the Pension Rules. Learned Counsel Shri Gaikwad has submitted that such application was made by the petitioner to the State Government. However, the impugned communication dated 20.6.2008 does not show that the State Government considered the application of the petitioner in the light of above referred provisions. The impugned communication is completely silent in this regard. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it will be appropriate to remit the issue of grant of special pension to the State Government for reconsideration of the same in the light of 6 observations made by the Tribunal in para (22) of the impugned order. The State Government is directed to take a decision in the light of the said observations of the Tribunal and in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order. So far as challenge of the petitioner to the order of the Tribunal is concerned, same is rejected. With these observations, the petition is disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE khj