IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.15820 of 2010 Date of decision : 7.9.2010 Sohan Masih … Petitioner Versus Union of India and others …Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr.Justice M.M.Kumar Hon’ble Ms.Justice Ritu Bahri Present: Mr.D.K.Nagar, Advocate for the petitioner. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M.Kumar, J. The instant petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, is directed against order dated 17.5.2010 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity the ‘Tribunal’) non-suiting the petitioner on the ground that the cause of action, if any, arose to him in the year 1987. The learned Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that there was no cause for delay during various spells of period after the cause of action had arisen. The limitation period in the present case had commenced from the date when one Karamjit Singh was promoted in the year 1987 and the petitioner should have moved the Tribunal within one year or at the most, six months after, the petitioner made his first representation. The petitioner has retired from service in the year 2006. Even then, he approached the Tribunal four years after his retirement. The matter is hopelessly time barred and no relief can be granted. Dismissed. (M.M.Kumar ) Judge (Ritu Bahri) Judge 07.09.2010 sd