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


Shyam Sunder Prasad Gupta v. Union Of India & Others - WRIT - A No. 39768 of 2001 [2007] RD-AH 8825 (9 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).


Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.

Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

The writ petition is directed against the order dated 14.5.2001 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing the Original Application no. 148 of 1994 of the petitioner. It is not disputed that the petitioner was allowed senior and proforma fixation of pay by order dated 18.10.1979, which was withdrawn by the Division Rail Manager (P) vide order dated 8.7.1980 and the said order was sought to be challenged by the petitioner after more than 14 years before the Tribunal in the aforesaid Original Application. The Tribunal, therefore, has declined observing that at such a belated stage and that too when the petitioner has already retired on 31.1.1993 and thereafter in 1994 has filed the application, the matter does not warrant any interference. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not show any error apparent on the face of record committed by the Tribunal in declining to entertain such a belated matter, i.e., after 14 years. However, he contended that he was making continuous representation and when his last representation dated 18.1.1993 was relied vide letter dated 19.1.1993, only thereafter he approached the Tribunal in the aforesaid Original Application.

It is well settled that repeated representation will not extend the period of limitation and therefore, learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed the Original Application whereby the petitioner sought to agitate an issue which was almost more that 14 years old. In out view, the order of Tribunal, impugned in the writ petition, warrants no interference.

The writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

Dt. 9.5.2007



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.