Allahabad High Court
HARISH CHANDRA SAINIversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
- Decided
Holding
The Tribunal's rejection of the condonation application and dismissal of the original application as time‑barred is affirmed.
Summary
Harish Chandra Saini challenged his termination order of 2002 by filing an original application in 2015 after seeking condonation of delay. The Central Administrative Tribunal rejected the condonation request, deeming the 13‑year delay unexplained and dismissed the original application as time‑barred. The petitioner claimed he only learned of the termination through an RTI response in 2011 and that an appeal filed in 2012 kept the matter pending, justifying the delay. The High Court found no evidence of the 2012 appeal and held that the petitioner was aware of his termination, so the limitation period began in 2002. Applying Supreme Court precedents, the Court found no merit in condoning the delay and upheld the Tribunal’s order. The writ petition was therefore dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal was justified in rejecting the petitioner's application for condonation of delay.
- Whether the limitation period for filing the original application began on the date of termination (06.02.2002) despite the petitioner's claim of delayed knowledge.
- Whether an appeal filed in 2012, if any, would toll the limitation period for the original application.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- limitation period
- condonation of delay
- service termination
- administrative law
- writ petition
- Central Administrative Tribunal
- Right to Information Act
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 15020 of 2026
Harish Chandra Saini
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Union of India and another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ritesh Srivastava, Shweta Singh,
Wilson Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., Purnendu Kumar Singh
Chief Justice's Court
HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.
1. Heard Shri Ritesh Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Shri Purnendu Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated
13.04.2026, whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad
Bench, Allahabad (‘Tribunal’) has rejected Misc. Application No. 3893 of
2015 seeking condonation of delay in filing the Original Application
(‘O.A.’) No. 1337 of 2015 and, consequently, dismissed the said O.A. as
time barred.
3. The O.A. was filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated
06.02.2002, whereby the respondents had terminated his services. An
application being Misc. Application No. 3893 of 2015 was filed seeking
condonation of delay in filing the O.A. and in the affidavit filed in support
thereof, it was stated that the order of removal had not been served upon
the petitioner, for which reason, the same could not be challenged by him
within the period of limitation. It was further stated that the petitioner
acquired knowledge of the order dated 06.02.2002 on receiving response
to his application dated 26.05.2011 moved under the Right to Information
Act, 2005 and then he filed an appeal on 09.04.2012 against the order
dated 06.02.2002. It was further stated that since no order had been
passed in the pending appeal, the petitioner was left with no alternative
but to file the O.A. and, therefore, the delay should be condoned.
4. The Tribunal, after dealing with the contents of the application seeking
WRIA No. 15020 of 2026
2
condonation of delay and placing reliance on the decisions of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Chennai Metro Politan Water Supply & Sewerage
Borad and others vs. T.T. Murall Babu : (2014) 4 SCC 108 and
Pashupati Subba Reddy (Died) by L.Rs. and others vs. Special
Deputy Collector (LA) : 2024 SCC OnLine Sc 513, arrived at a
conclusion that no plausible reason had been given or explained or
brought on record by the petitioner in approaching the Tribunal only in
the year 2015 after an inordinate and unexplained delay of 13 years from
the date of punishment order and that the petitioner having not provided
any satisfactory explanation nor having explained day-to-day delay in
filing the O.A., the Misc. Application was liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the application seeking condonation of delay was rejected
and the O.A. was dismissed as time barred.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made submissions that since an
appeal was filed by the petitioner in the year 2012 against the order of
termination and the same was not decided, the O.A. was filed in 2015 and
there was not much delay as such. Further submission has been made that
the department never served the order of removal upon the petitioner and
it was only when the same was served upon him pursuant to the
application moved under the Right to Information Act, steps were taken
by him to challenge the same and, therefore, the delay, if any, was liable
to be condoned.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the order
impugned and submission has been made that once the petitioner was not
permitted to work since after the order of termination was passed in 2002,
alleged filing of the appeal in 2012 or the O.A. in 2015 with inordinate
delay would be fatal to his claim and the Tribunal has rightly rejected the
application.
7. We have considered the submissions made and have perused the
material available on record.
8. Admittedly, the services of the petitioner were terminated in the year
2002 and, thereafter, he was not allowed to work. Therefore, it cannot be
accepted that the petitioner was not aware of termination of his services.
In the affidavit seeking condonation of delay, though a plea was raised
WRIA No. 15020 of 2026
3
that an appeal was filed by the petitioner in 2012, it has come in the order
of the Tribunal that no such document was filed in support of the said
plea. Even if we assume that an appeal was filed in 2012 and the same
was pending in 2015 when the O.A. was filed, the petitioner did not seek
any relief qua the appeal or its expeditious disposal, rather, he directly
challenged the order dated 06.02.2002 before the Tribunal and, therefore,
the period of limitation having been computed form that date, the O.A.
was rightly treated as 13 years barred by limitation.
9. The explanation offered in the application seeking condonation of
delay being wholly unacceptable in the facts of the case, we are of the
view that the Tribunal has rightly rejected the application by following
the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai
Metro Politan Water Supply & Sewerage Borad (supra) and
Pashupati Subba Reddy (supra).
10. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any good ground to
interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal.
11. The writ petition has no substance; the same is, therefore, dismissed.
(Kshitij Shailendra, J.) (Arun Bhansali, CJ.)
September 18, 2026
Sazia
Digitally signed by :-
SAZIA AQUIL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…