1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 691 OF 2009 Prem Kumar Jetly. ... ... Petitioner. Versus The Union of India and Ors. ... ... Respondents. Mr. G. K. Masand i/by Mr. A. A. Manwani for the Petitioner. Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Respondents. CORAM : D. D. SINHA and A. A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : 13TH JANUARY, 2010. P. C.: Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 7th October, 2003 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal whereby the Original Application No. 164 of 2001 filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed mainly on the ground of delay and laches. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents. 3. The petitioner was reverted from the post of Senior Scale Group “A” vide order dated 19th June, 1992. The representation submitted by the petitioner 2 against the order of reversion dated 23rd February, 1996 was rejected by the Department vide order dated 12th April, 2000. In view of this fact, the Tribunal in para 9 of the impugned order observed thus : “9. It is not at dispute that the order in question was served on him on 18.06.1992. According to him, he made representation on 20.06.1992, 24.06.1992. Both the representations were replied by letter dt. 06.08.1992. It is mentioned that his representations dt. 20.06.1992 and 24.06.1992 against the order of reversion dt. 16.06.1992 have been carefully considered by the Competent Authority, his Confidential Reports for the period 1991-1992 have been correctly initiated by DRM BSL and reviewed by CME and he was reverted not only based on his performance in 1991-92 but also for the earlier period. Thus his representations were disposed of on 06.08.1992 itself. If the representations made by him are considered to be statutory representations, then the limitation has to be counted from the date when the statutory representations have been disposed of. The applicant has to explain the delay from 06.08.1993 when the period of limitation expires. The representation made to CVC dt. 23.02.1996, certainly cannot be said to be a statutory representations provided under any of the Rules and that the reply given to that cannot be taken as starting point for limitation. The applicant is seeking the relief of quashing the order dated 19.06.1992. If the applicant is considered to have made the statutory representation, then the limitation has to be counted from 06.08.1992 when his representations were disposed of by the Competent Authority. The unexplained delay by itself is a ground to refuse the relief prayed for by the applicant. I have mentioned that the repeated representations cannot extend the limitation as the applicants representations were disposed of on 06.08.1992.The applicant ought to have filed the O. A. within a period of one year from 06.08.1992. There is no satisfactory explanation for not approaching Tribunal for a period of more than 8 years. There is no valid explanation on record for coming to conclusion that case of delay is made out. The O.A. Is filed on 23.02.2001 and the limitation starts from 06.08.1992. We find that the O.A. is hit by bar of limitation. Any exercise to examine the applicant’s case on merits would therefore be futile. The result is that this application is dismissed as being barred by limitation. No order as to costs.” 3 4. The conclusions recorded by the Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the present case, in our view, are just and proper and also sustainable in law. Hence no case is made out for interference with the impugned Order of the Tribunal. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (D. D. SINHA, J.) Sd/- (A. A. SAYED, J.)