Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Ram Nath v. Central Administrative Tribunal & Others - WRIT - A No. 36305 of 2002 [2007] RD-AH 8693 (8 May 2007)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


RESERVED ON 20.4.2007

Delivered on 8.5.2007

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.36305 of 2002

Ram Nath


Central Administrative Tribunal and others


Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.

Heard Sri O.N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

The writ petition is directed against the order dated 15th January 2002 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad dismissing Original Application N.2 of 1999 of the petitioner.

The facts, as stated in the writ petition, are that the petitioner was employed as Labourer 'B' at Ordinance Parachute Factory, Kanpur in the year 1963. He absented from service sometimes in the year 1979 and due to his continuous absence the appointing authority by order dated 8th April 1983 removed him from service pursuant to an enquiry conducted against him. The dues of Provident Fund etc. were paid to him on 18th May 1984. He did not challenge the order of removal for almost 16 years and more. In 1999 he filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking following reliefs:-

"i) Issue an order direction to the respondents to pay the gratuity, pension and amounts of Group Insurance as payable which ever due in accordance with law.

ii) Issue a further order direction to the respondents to pay the entire amount along with interest as admissible under law.

Iii) Issue any order direction which this Tribunal as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

iv) Award cost of Original Application to the petitioner."

The Tribunal after observing that the petitioner having been removed from service on 8th April 1983 has kept silence for such a long time, therefore rejected the application as barred by limitation. Further since he was removed from service and the order of removal was not challenged, there was no occasion to allow any pension to him.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he was illegally removed from service in an exparte proceeding which had resulted in gross injustice. Admittedly the order of removal was passed by the competent authority on 8th April 1983 and the same was not challenged by the petitioner before any forum till date. Even in the original application filed before the Tribunal in 1999, there is no relief sought against the order of removal. Once the order of removal stands, the question of payment of pension and other retiral benefits to the petitioner would not arise and his claim for such dues is thoroughly misconceived. It is also evident from the record that his full and final payments towards Provident Fund was made on 18th May 1984 and even thereafter he did not raise any dispute in any appropriate forum within time.

In the circumstances we do not find any merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. No orders as to costs.

Dated: 8.5.2007



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.