1 M.P. No.

1424/2020

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

M.P. No.1424/2020
(Smt. Snehlata Neware vs Union of India and others and others)
Jabalpur Dt. 03.01.2022
Shri Vishal Daniel, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri J.K. Jain, learned counsel for the respondents.
This petition under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the
Constitution assails the final order dated 15.01.2022 passed by the
Jabalpur Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal by which the OA
No.200/769/2019 has been dismissed as barred by limitation.
2. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard on the question of
admission as well as final disposal.
3. Bare facts giving rise to present case are that an order of
compulsory retirement in public interest passed on 30.06.2017 was
assailed by the petitioner in OA No. 200/769/2019 before the Jabalpur
Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Against the aforesaid order
of compulsory retirement, a representation made by the petitioner on
21.08.2017 which was returned by the respondents on 08.09.2017 to
enable the petitioner to prefer it before appropriate authority. Since
representation despite having been preferred before the appropriate
authority was not being decided, the petitioner approached the Tribunal
by filing OA No.200/738/2017 which was disposed of on 03.01.2018
directing the respondents to decide the representation within 60 days.
Pursuant thereto, the respondents rejected the representation on
06.02.2018 whereafter the petitioner preferred the review petition on
05.04.2018. Having received no response to the review representation,
present OA in question was filed on 08.08.2019 before the Tribunal.
The aforesaid OA filed on 08.08.2019 was filed with delay of about
five-six months after expiry of one year of the period of limitation
provided under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. As
such, the petitioner moved an application under Section 21 of the Act
seeking condonation of delay of 5 months 21 days in preferring the OA.
The said application seeking condonation of delay assigned single
reason of petitioner being unwell. However, the said application was not
supported by any documents vouching for ailment of the petitioner.
 2 M.P. No.1424/2020

Consequently, the Tribunal declined to condone the delay and

rejected the OA as time barred in absence of any cogent material to
satisfy the reason for delay.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to satisfy this Court
that there was any cogent material to satisfactorily explain the delay of 5
months 21 days in preferring the OA.
5. The Tribunal constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act,
1985 has to function within the four corners prescribed under the said Act
and the Rules framed thereunder. Section 21 of the Act and the relevant
statutory provision of the Rules reveal that Tribunal is vested with the
power of condoning delay occasioned in filing the OA provided the
Tribunal is satisfied of existence of sufficient cause for not preferring the
OA within the prescribed period of limitation. Meaning thereby, the
petitioner who approaches the Tribunal is required to satisfy, based on
cogent evidence which ordinarily should be documentary, that the
petitioner was prevented from approaching the Tribunal within the period
of limitation by some bonafide cause ocassioned by reason beyond his or
her control. Merely stating on oath that the petitioner was unwell without
any supporting documentary evidence cannot compel the Tribunal to
invoke its discretionary power of condoning delay.
6. In view of the above discussion, this Court has no manner of doubt
that the rejection of the OA of petitioner for being barred by limitation
was made while exercising discretionary power available to the Tribunal
under the Act and the Rules made thereunder and while doing so the
Tribunal did not exceed any of its jurisdictional purviews set by law. Just
because another view is possible in the given facts and circumstances
cannot be a good ground to interfere.
Accordingly, petition stands dismissed sans cost.

(Sheel Nagu) (Smt. Sunita Yadav)

Judge Judge

YS

Digitally signed by YOGESH KUMAR SHIRVASTAVA

Date: 2022.01.11 14:56:23 +05'30'