Central Administrative Tribunal
Gourav Sharma vs M/O RAILWAYS on 3 November 2026
:: 1 :: O.A. No. 61/1484/2026
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU
Hearing through video conferencing
Original Application No. 61/1484/2026
Reserved on: 27.10.2026
Pronounced on: This the 3rd day of November 2026
HON’BLE SHRI RAM MOHAN JOHRI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
HON’BLE SHRI DIWAKAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1.
Gourav Sharma, age 26 year, s/o Satpal Sharma, R/o Somant Enclave Laxmi Nagar, Muthi, Jammu.
...Applicant
(Through Advocate: Mr. Arun Pratap Singh)
VERSUS
1.
Union of India and Ors.
.....Respondents
(Through Advocate: Mr. Raghu Mehta, ld. Sr. C.G.S.C.)
Phone=
RAJAT
SINGH
PATHANIA
:: 2 :: O.A. No. 61/1484/2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
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.
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
Phone=
RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA
:: 3 :: O.A. No. 61/1484/2026
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
Phone=
RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA