S GAMAILEL vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd on 31 December 2018

**ORAL ORDER**

(Per Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman)

This application is filed with a prayer to condone the delay of 3 years 4 months and 18 days in filing the O.A.

2. The O.A. in turn is filed challenging an order dated 18.02.2013 through which sanction was accorded for payment of Rs.2,93,613/- towards commuted value of pension and for recovery of almost equivalent amount. The applicant contends that he retired from service on 31.07.2012 on attaining the age of superannuation and recoveries were made from his retirement benefits on the basis of an undertaking procured from him. It is stated that recently he came to know about the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in *State of Punjab vs Rafiq Masih in Civil Appeal No.11527/2014* according to which, recovery cannot be made and that the delay is neither wilful nor wanton.

3. The respondents filed a counter affidavit opposing the O.A. According to them, the applicant was aware of the impugned order from *[Handwritten signature]*


(MA/439/2017 & OA/553/2017)

the beginning and hardly any reason for the delay is stated in the affidavit.

4. We heard Dr. A. Raghu Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Smt. A.P. Lakshmi, learned Standing Counsel for BSNL.

5. The delay involved is 3 years 4 months and 18 days. Even according to the applicant, the recoveries were made at the time of his retirement. Added to that, the impugned order dated 18.2.2013 was served upon him soon after it was passed. The applicant did not even mention in the affidavit that he received copy of the order at a later point of time. Neither he protested against the making of deductions made at the time of his retirement, nor did he challenge the impugned order soon after it was served upon him. 3 years and 4 months, by any standard, is a very long time. Strong reasons need to be pleaded and proved for condonation of such enormous delay. Nothing happened to the applicant without his knowledge. On the other hand, the payments were made to him duly obtaining his undertaking. We do not find any basis to condone such long delay.

6. The Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by the applicant is not about condonation of delay. Further, the principle laid therein does not govern the cases where the recoveries effected long back.

*[Handwritten signature]*


(MA/439/2017 & OA/553/2017)

7. M.A. is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, O.A. shall stand rejected. There shall be no order as to costs.

प्रमाणित प्रत **CERTIFIED TRUE COPY**

संख्या संख्या CASE NUMBER... OA 553/2017 & MA 439/2017 निर्णय का तारीख DATE OF JUDGEMENT... 31-12-2017 प्रत बनाई गई तिथि COPY MADE ON... 29-1-2019

*Ning* 29/1/19

अनुपम अय्यलाल / प्रधान अय्यलाल Section Officer / Court Officer केन्द्रीय प्रशासनिक आधिकारिक Central Administrative Tribunal हैदराबाद खासगीत/Hyderabad Bench