Central Administrative Tribunal
RAGHU NATH SAHU vs EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY on 6 October 2026
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PATNA
Order Sheet
Item no.: 35
M.A./784/2022 (RANCHI)
[ EXECUTION ]
[ SENIOR CITIZEN ]
In
O.A./211/2007
Court No.: 1
No of Adjournment: 28
Order Dated: 06/10/2026
RAGHU NATH SAHU
Vs
EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY
For Applicant(s) Advocate : Shri Rishikesh Giri For Respondent(s) Advocate : Shri Pravin Kumar Pandey, ASC
Order of The Tribunal
Learned counsel for both sides are present.
MA No. 367/2023 has been filed by the applicant for condonation of delay in filing the execution petition vide MA No. 784/2022.
Counsel for the Opposite Party Shri Pravin Kumar Pandey has vehemently opposed the MA and submitted that this execution application is expressly barred by the provision of limitation.
Initially, OA No. 211/2007 was decided by this Tribunal vide order dated 25.06.2008. The operative portion of the order reads as under:- “ …….. As observed in earlier paragraphs, the Applicant has rightly contended that impugned order dated 30.07.2007 is passed not in consonance with the directions of the Hon’ble High Court passed in CWJC No. 1456/1983(R) and this Tribunal passed in OA No.
62/2005. Accordingly, we quash the impugned order dated 30.07.2007 at Annexure-A/9 and we direct the Respondents to consider the service of the Applicant from the date of initial service till the date of reinstatement and pass appropriate order counting his service from initial service till the date of reinstatement within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
With the above observation, The OA is disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.”
Against the above order, the Opposite Party approached Hon’ble High Court in W.P.(C ) No. 5997 of 2008 which was dismissed in default vide order dated 21.07.2015. Thereafter, the Opposite Party filed CMP No.
111/2018 to restore/recall the above order which was also dismissed on 26.09.2018.
In the meantime, the applicant filed CP No. 28/2008 which was dropped by this Tribunal vide order dated 25.06.2009.
After the above order the applicant approached this Tribunal with the present MA No. 784/2022 with a prayer for direction upon the Opposite party to execute the order dated 25.06.2008 passed in OA No. 211/2007.
Since the application was time barred therefore the applicant filed MA
No. 367/2023 for condonation of delay.
In para-8 of the MA No. 367/2023 the applicant has submitted that there was a CMP pending before the Hon’ble High Court and the applicant was not aware about the order and that is why he could not take proper steps due to lack of proper awareness and knowledge about the litigation.
Further in para-9 he has submitted that the applicant was suffering from cancer for which he was undergoing surgery since 2009 and was suffering from various other ailments. It is also submitted by the applicant that he is continuously under treatment at CMC, Vellore and still he is not fully fit and therefore he could not pursue the case.
Further in para-10 he has submitted that he was issued a permanent disability certificate dated 15.01.2021 by the competent authority. It is further submitted that even the delay in filing the execution petition is not deliberate and due to inadvertence the applicant could not file the execution petition within the prescribed time period. Therefore, delay may be condoned.
It has also been submitted by counsel for the applicant that as per direction of the Hon’ble Apex Court in WP(C) No. 3 of 2020 the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 has been excluded for the purposes of limitation.
The Opposite Party have filed their reply to the MA and submitted that the execution petition has been filed after inordinate delay of 14 years and the applicant has not explained the delay. In support of his contention, counsel for Opposite Party has cited the following decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court:-
i. Hukum Raj Khinvsara Vs. Union of India & Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 2237 of 1997 decided on March 17, 1997 [ (1997) 4
SCC 384].
ii. D.C.S. Negi Vs. Union of India & Ors. Decided on March 7, 2011 [(2018) 16 SCC 721).
iii. State of Karnataka and Others Vs. S.M. Kotrayya and Others [(1996) 6 SCC 267]
Heard the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
According to Section-27 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant is required to file the execution petition under the limitation as mentioned in Section 20 of the AT Act, 1985.
Section 27 of the AT Act, 1985 reads as follows:- “ 27. Execution of orders of a Tribunal- Subject to the other provisions of this Act and the rules, [the order of a Tribunal finally disposing of an application or an appeal shall be final and shall not be called in question in any Court (including a High Court) and such order] shall be executed in the same manner in which any final order of the nature referred to in clause (a) of sub-section(2) of Section 20 (whether or not such final order had actually been made) in respect of the grievance to which the application relates would have been executed.”
Section 20 of the AT Act, 1985 reads as follows:- “20. Applications not to be admitted unless other remedies exhausted. -
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
3
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
(1) A Tribunal shall not ordinarily admit an application unless it is satisfied that the applicant had availed of all the remedies available to him under the relevant service rules as to redressal of grievances.
(2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), a person shall be deemed to have availed of all the remedies available to him under the relevant service rules as to redressal of grievances,- (a) if a final order has been made by the Government or other authority or officer or other person competent to pass such order under such rules, rejecting any appeal preferred or representation made by such person in connection with the grievance; or (b) where no final order has been made by the Government or other authority or officer or other person competent to pass such order with regard to the appeal preferred or representation made by such person, if a period of six months from the date on which such appeal was preferred or representation was made has expired.
(3) For the purposes of sub-sections (1) and (2), any remedy available to an applicant by way of submission of a memorial to the President or to the Governor of a State or to any other functionary shall not be deemed to be one of the remedies which are available unless the applicant had elected to submit such memorial.” The period of limitation as according to Section 20(2)(a) be considered as according to provision of Section 21(1) (a) of the of the Act. The above provision is reproduced as under:- “ 21. Limitation - (1) A Tribunal shall not admit an application,- (a) In a case where a final order such as is mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section(2) of Section 20 has been made in connection with the grievance unless the application is made, within one year from the date on which such final order has been made;……” In view of the above provision, the period of limitation of one year as prescribed to file execution petition has already expired long ago because the order in OA was passed on 25.06.2008, whereas the present application has been filed on 13.12.2022. In para 8, 9 and 10 of MA No. 367/2023, the applicant has submitted that due to inadvertence and lack of knowledge about the litigation he could not file the execution petition in time. However, the record indicates that the applicant filed CP No. 28/2008 which was dropped by this Tribunal vide order dated 25.06.2009. Thereafter, the fact of filing of W.P. No. 5997/2008 and CMP No. 111/2018 was well in the knowledge of the applicant. In this regard, the fact has also been argued that the applicant had contested the proceeding which was pending in Hon’ble High Court which shows that the applicant was having knowledge of the litigation.
The contention of the applicant is that the application for execution was filed as the period of limitation from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 was excluded by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020. Thereafter, the applicant shall also be given the benefit of above judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court which was passed on 10.01.2022. The benefit of above order of Hon’ble Supreme Court cannot be given to applicant as prior to the date of such exemption the period of limitation was started. In overall assessment of the matter, it has been found that the application for execution has been filed after an inordinate delay of approximately 13 years and the applicant has failed to give satisfactory explanation for not filing the execution application within prescribed period of limitation. Hence, we are of the considered view that the application is barred by the provisions of limitation as per Section 27 of the AT Act, 1985. In view of the above, MA No. 367/2023 filed for condonation of delay in filing execution petition vide MA No. 784/2022 is dismissed. Consequently, MA No. 784/2022 filed for execution of the order of the Tribunal is also dismissed. KUMAR RAJESH CHANDRA Member (A) Justice Narendra Kumar Johari Member (J) Suryaroop Kabi ( ps )