Central Administrative Tribunal

MOHAMMAD SHABIR vs AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION DEPARTMENT on 30 October 2026

:: 1 :: O.A. No. 61/1507/2026

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU

Hearing through video conferencing

Original Application No. 61/1507/2026

This the 30th day of October 2026

HON’BLE SHRI RAM MOHAN JOHRI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

HON’BLE SHRI DIWAKAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.

MOHAMMAD SHABIR, Age 53 years S/o Sh. Wazir Hussain, R/o Ward No.5 Jawahar Nagar Rajouri, Tehsil and District Rajouri-185132

...Applicant

(Through Advocate: Mr. N D Qazi)

VERSUS

1.

UT of J&K and Ors.

.....Respondents

(Through Advocate: Mr. Hunar Gupta, learned Dy. A.G.

Mr. Sumant Sudan)

Page 1 of 3

RAJAT SINGH

PATHANIA

:: 2 :: O.A. No. 61/1507/2026

O R D E R

Shri Ram Mohan Johri, Administrative Member The applicant has filed the present Original Application seeking the reliefs as enumerated therein.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings available on record.

3. At the outset, it is noticed that the present OA suffers from the vice of limitation. The grievance raised by the applicant relates to a cause of action which had accrued much prior to the institution of the present proceedings. However, the applicant has approached this Tribunal beyond the period prescribed under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

4. It is pertinent to mention that Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, prescribes the period of limitation for approaching this Tribunal. Although sub-section (3) thereof empowers the Tribunal to entertain an application beyond the prescribed period, the same is subject to the applicant establishing sufficient cause for the delay.

5. In the present case, the applicant has failed to demonstrate any sufficient cause which would warrant exercise of the discretion vested in this Tribunal for condonation of delay. Mere filing of representations or pursuing the matter with the

Page 2 of 3

RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA

:: 3 :: O.A. No. 61/1507/2026

departmental authorities, by itself, would not extend or revive the period of limitation.

6. In view of the aforesaid position, we are of the considered opinion that the present Original Application is barred by limitation and cannot be entertained. Since the matter is liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation itself, we refrain from entering into the merits of the case.

7. Accordingly, the Original Application is dismissed as barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Pending MAs, if any, also stand disposed of.

8. There shall be no order as to costs.

(DIWAKAR SINGH)

(RAM MOHAN JOHRI) Judicial Member Administrative Member RS Pathania Steno-D

RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA

Page 3 of 3

Loading citations and judicial treatment…

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead