THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.24739 of 2009 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar) The present case is identical on facts with W.P.Nos.24276 of 2009 and 24364 of 2009, in which we have already passed orders on 11-11-2009, whereby while dismissing the writ petitions, we gave liberty to the petitioners therein to approach the Tribunal along with appropriate affidavit duly explaining the reasons. In the present case also, identical affidavit is filed in support of the application for condonation of delay. However, the only difference in the present case is that after filing counter affidavit by the respondents, the petitioner also filed a reply affidavit. The learned counsel, therefore, urges that the present case stands on slightly better footing than the two cases disposed of earlier. Learned counsel also relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this court in ELURI MARTHAMMAVs. DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER[1], which was decided by a Division Bench, to which one of us [the Hon’ble Judge VE,J] is a party. In paragraph 5 of the said judgment, this court had disproved the stand of the Railways in rejecting the application of the writ petitioner therein for compassionate appointment of the ground of delay. The ratio enunciated in the said decision, therefore, related to the action of the respondents- Railways in not entertaining the application of the writ petitioner within time, whereas the present case relates to the petitioner not approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal within the limitation prescribed under the Administrative Tribunal Act. The said decision, therefore, is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The reasons mentioned by the petitioner in the rejoinder application cannot be a ground for condonation of delay, as the respondents have no opportunity to file counter affidavit thereafter. The Central Administrative Tribunal had considered the entire matter and being not satisfied with the reasons given in support of the application seeking condonation of abnormal delay of 345 days, had dismissed the said application. We do not see any reasons to take a different view. However, as in W.P.Nos.24276 of 2009 and 24364 of 2009, the petitioner shall have liberty to approach the Tribunal along with fresh application duly explaining the reasons for condonation of delay and this order shall not prejudice him to that extent, if the petitioner approaches the Tribunal again. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J ________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dated: 17-11-2009 Prv [1] 2000 (3) ADMINISTRATIVE TOTAL JUDGMENTS 238