THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 12081 of 2010 Dated: 3.6.2010 Between: B.V. Satyanarayana Prasad ..PETITIONER And 1. Union of India rep., by the General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad and others. ..RESPONDENTS This Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 12081 of 2010 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) Challenging the order dated 2.2.2010 made in O.A. No. 243 of 2008 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The facts in brief are that while the petitioner was working as a Track Machine Maintainer in the pay scale of Rs. 2650- 4000, he was called for selection to the post of Track Machine Maintainer Grade-III in the scale of Rs. 3050-4590. The petitioner appears to have passed the written test and was directed for medical examination. It appears, in the medical examination, the petitioner was found unfit in A3 medical classification and was declared fit in B2 medical classification. Thereafter, the applicant was absorbed in the alternative post of Junior Record Sorter in the pay scale of Rs. 800-1150 (RSRP). The petitioner having come to know that two such similarly medically decategorised employees were working at other depots in the Track Machine Organisation even though they were found to be unfit in A3 medical examination, he filed a representation on 21.1.2008 to the respondents requesting them to put him back to Track Machine Organisation duly posting him as Track Machine Maintainer Grade-III in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590, followed by another representation 14.2.2008. When the respondents did not take any action on the said representations, the petitioner filed O.A. No. 243 of 2008 before the Tribunal seeking the following relief: “Call for the records pertaining to medical unfitness of the applicant and absorption as a Record Sorter vide O.O. No. PG/109/97 issued under letter No. B/P.II/IX/Vol.IV, dated 22.9.1997 and representations dated 21.1.2008, 14.2.2008 and to declare the said Office Order as illegal and arbitrary to the extent of the case of the applicant in absorbing him as Junior Record Sorter in Grade Rs. 800-1150 (RSRP) and thereby direct the respondents to treat the applicant as continued in TMM organisation duly reckoning higher grades in favour of the applicant on par with his erstwhile juniors in TMM organisation by setting aside the proceedings issued vide O.O. No. PG/109/97, dated 22.9.1997 and grant all consequential benefits to the applicant and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.” While opposing the O.A., the respondents have filed counter affidavit stating that the O.A. is time barred in terms of Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. It is further stated that the applicant filed the present O.A., in the year 2008 seeking to declare the office order No.PG/109/97 which was passed in the year 1997 as illegal and arbitrary. They further stated that the petitioner approached the Tribunal quite belatedly and he also failed to explain the reasons for such abnormal delay of more than 11 years. They also stated that they never received any representations from the petitioner. However, while relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in C.Jacob vs. Director of Geology and Mining and another( [1]), they contended that the claim of the petitioner is stale and the same is liable to be rejected. A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner stating that there is a continuous cause of action and in support of the said contention, he filed a copy of the order dated 31.10.2007 of the Tribunal passed in O.A No.119 of 2007. The learned Tribunal, having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the counter affidavit and the reply filed thereof, while relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in E. Parmasivam vs. Union of India & others ([2]), dismissed the O.A. as time barred. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. In Parmasivam’s case(supra-2), wherein the applicants had claimed that the grievance denying of the cause of action for the applicants is a continuous cause of action, the Apex Court has rejected the claim of the applicants on the ground of limitation in terms of Section 21 of the Administrative tribunals Act,1985 holding thus: “The petitioners could have raised objection regarding the anomaly in the scale of pay at that point of time when the Government of India had declined to extend the revised scale of pay in terms of the concordance table to members of the cadres of the Stores Officers and Administrative Officers and that the Tribunal was right in holding that the Original Application filed by the petitioners was barred by limitation.” Admittedly, in the instant case, the cause of action arose when the order dated 12.9.1997 was passed through which the petitioner was transferred from the post of Track Machine Maintainer to the post of Junior Record Sorter. It is also seen from the record that the petitioner-applicant has given his willingness for absorption into the alternative post of Junior Record Sorter in the month of August, 1997 itself and if really, the petitioner was aggrieved by the order dated 12.9.1997, he ought to have filed the O.A. challenging the said order within a reasonable time. Though the petitioner claimed to have filed a representation on 21.1.2008 before the respondents requesting them to put him back to Track Machine Organisation duly posting him as Track Machine Maintainer Grade-III in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590, followed by another representation 14.2.2008, the respondents denied the factum of filing of any such representations. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that there is a continuous cause of action, cannot be sustained. While reiterating that the claim of the petitioner is time barred, the Tribunal relied upon the judgment of the Apex court in State Bank of India Vs. B.S. Agriculture Industries[3]. It is necessary to extract paras-11 and 12 of the said judgment, which read thus: “Section 24-A of the Act, 1986 prescribes limitation period for admission of a complaint by the consumer fora thus: “24-A. Limitation Period – (1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period: Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.” It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is peremptory in nature and requires the consumer forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The consumer forum, however, for the reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the complaint if sufficient cause is shown. The expression, “shall not admit a complaint” occurring in Section 24-A is sort of a legislative command to the consumer forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within the limitation period prescribed thereunder. As a matter of law, the consumer forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the consumer forum to take notice of Section 24-A and give effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the consumer forum decides the complaint on merits, the forum would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside.” It is also seen from the record that the petitioner did not file any application along with the O.A. for condonation of such abnormal delay. He also failed to explain the reasons for filing the O.A. so belatedly. The Tribunal, while taking all these aspects into consideration rightly dismissed the O.A. as time barred. Under the above circumstances and in view of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgments referred to above, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order of the Tribunal warranting interference. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________________ Justice Ghulam Mohammed _____________________ Justice G. Bhavani Prasad Date: 03.6.2010 Pnb THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 12081 OF 2010 (Order delivered by Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) 03.06.2010 [1]( 2008) 10 SCC 115 [2] 2005 SCC (L&S) 125 [3] (2009) 5 Supreme Court Cases 121