H'<SH.<:^M9^uei^ M<3^<iWTTl^A8HiBgJ^naR enQsioif<LB!i!l*c!"l CORAM: HON'BLE SWU S.R. NAYAK, CJ & HON'BLESHRIVX.SHRIVASTAVA.J. W.P. No. (S) 6383 or»OB H@3aS!l^ S.S. Misby, aged about 63 yeare, son of Shri Biteirilal Mistfy. Retd. Chirf Reseivation Su|»rvisor / Raipur, LK3 E- 45., Sector-3, Devendra Nagar, Raipur - 492 009 P.N.B. Sfi AC/hto.0372113. RESPOKUOENTS V£RSUS 1. Unton of India, through - Ministry of Railway, New DeM. 2. The South Easlem Cenbd Raitway, ffltepur DiviskMi, through - te Divteiaial Railway Manager, Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. The Senior Dh/isional Personnel Manayr, South Eastem Central Railway, Bilaspur, (C.G.) 4. The Senkir ravisional Personnel Manager, South Eastem Cential Raihway, Raipur (C.G.) 5. The Manager (Coromeroial) South Eartern Central Raihway, Raipur(C.G.) 6. The Centrat Administrathre Tribunal, Jabalpur, Cireuft Court Sitting at Blaspur (C.G.) through - its Registrar. Present: Shri A. N. Bhakte, leamed counsel for the petitioner. Shri Amit Chaudhari and Ms. Yoshita M., teamed eotnsel Iw the responderts/Railways. ^ ORALOROER (Passed on 27" Novmnber, 2006) The following oral order ofthe Court was passed by S.R. NAYAK. CJ. Origmal Application No. 159 of 2006 fited by Uie petiBoner twteto, before the Central Administrative Tnbunal, Jabalpur Bench Circuit Court SiBing at Bilaspur ffor short "the Tribunal"), vide its ordsr dsrtsd 28t11 June 2006. impugned in this writ petition. is dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground of limitation. 2- (2) Having heard leamed counset for Ihe parties, we tto not find any flaw in ttie order impugned in this wrtt petifion. (3) The fercts are simpte. On attainiro Uie age <rf superannuation. the prtttoner was retired on 31-10-2001. A sum of Rs. 22,5^/- was deducted fr<»n gratutty and other pensiwiary beneflte paysAte to ttie petitioner towards the chaqes of electricity consumed bf tt»epdffloner in the officiat quarter altotted to hhn. Feelii^) ^grieved by that acfion of Uie department, the petitioner made a representation on 16^)8-20(K, a copy of whteh is appended at page No. 33 of the materia) papers. It appears that the department dtel nrt respond to ttie above representatton of the peBkwier wBi prom(rtitude and at a betated stage vide Annexure P/2 dated 09-12-2<XB, ttie ctaim of Uie petffloner to reftind a sum of Rs. 22,535/- was tumed down. Therefcre, <he petttiCTTer instituted O.A. No. 159 of 2006 before the Tribunal on 07-03-2006. (4) Leamed counsel for the peUfioner woukl contend ttiat 08-12-2005 should be reckoned as a starfing point for comfHiting NmtaUon of six months specified in Clause (b) of sub-Section (2) of Secfion 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 (for short "ttie AcT), and if it is so reckoned, the OA filed by the petUoner on 07-03-2006 was very much within limitation and therefore, the Tribunal is not jusUfied in cBsmisshg the O.A. on the ground of limitation. The submission of leamed counsel for the petitioner is maiUros. (5) Clause (b) of sub-Secfion (2) of SecUon 20 of the Act in unmistakatrie terms woukl indnate that the HmitaUon of SB( months would begin torun immediately after period ofsix montte from ttie date on which the representation was made, expires. In this ca®e,six 7 dO -;>• months period had expired <wi 15-02-2003 wrfiereas, admittedly, tfie OA sras filed before ttie Tribunal on 07-03-2006. (6) In that view <rf the matter, ex fecfe, the Or^iinal Applicadon was barred by time and we could Mt talce any exception to the impugned order. Thewritpetjttonisaccordinglydismissed. Noc< Sd/- ChiefJustice Sdf- V.K. Shrivastava Judge ^cb^ •S--