1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Writ Petition No.2981 of 2008 [Pramod Kumar Purthy Vs. Union of India & another] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. R.N. Sen, Adv., for the petitioners. Ms. U.R. Tanna, Adv., holding for Mr. R.S. Sundaram, Adv., for respondent nos. 1 and 2. ----- CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE AND A.H. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : 21st November,2008. Heard Mr. Sen, the learned counsel for the petitioners, who are the legal representatives of late Shri Pramod Kumar Purthy. Late Shri Purthy was employed as a Painter under the South-Eastern Railway, and in October, 1978, he came to be promoted to the post of Works Mistry in the pay-scale of Rs.1400-2300/-. A Disciplinary Enquiry was initiated against him on the charge of unauthorized absence from duty, and he was awarded the punishment of removal from service as per the order dated 22nd June, 1995. Against the said order, late Shri 2 Purthy filed a Departmental Appeal, and the same came to be allowed by reinstating him to the lower post of Painter in the pay-scale of Rs.950-1500/- as per the order issued by the Senior Divisional Engineer on 22nd June, 1995. After Mr. Purthy was reinstated, he submitted a Review Application before the Appellate Authority and as the Review Application was not decided, he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing an Original Application, which was registered as Original Application No. 71 of 1998. As the Original Application was beyond time, he filed Misc. Petition No. 95 of 1998 for condonation of delay and the said application has been rejected by the Tribunal on 15th February, 2000. Hence this Writ Petition. We have noticed that the petition has been filed before this Court on 27th June, 2008, i.e., after more than eight years from the date of the impugned order and, undoubtedly, this is an inordinate delay by any standard. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that Mr. Purthy died on 13th September, 2006 and before that, he was bed- ridden and, therefore, delay has been caused in approaching this Court. We are satisfied that good and sufficient reasons have not been made out to condone the inordinate delay of more than eight 3 years, and in any case, Mr. Purthy's Departmental Appeal was partly allowed. The punishment of removal from service was set aside and he was reinstated on the lower post as a Painter. Thus, it is not a fit case to condone the delay of more than eight years in approaching this Court. We are informed that the Review Petition filed by late Mr. Purthy is still pending with the Appellate Authority, and if that be so, it would be necessary for the respondent no.2 to decide the same within a fixed period. Hence we reject the petition on the ground of inordinate delay, and at the same time, direct the respondent no.2 to decide the Review Application filed by Mr. Purthy, if the same is still pending, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case, before 31st January, 2009. Judge Judge |Hedau|