Anil Daima vs DY. COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA on 3 November 2026

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR Order Sheet Item no.: 36 O.A./181/2026 (JODHPUR) [ CHARGE SHEET ] Court No.: 1 No of Adjournment: 5 Order Dated: 03/11/2026 ANIL DAIMA Vs DY. COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

For Applicant(s) Advocate : Mr Tarun Jaiman, for the applicant For Respondent(s) Advocate : Mr B.L.Tiwari, for the respondents Order of The Tribunal Heard learned counsel for the parties on the point of limitation. As per the objection raised by learned counsel for the respondents with regard to the limitation, the applicant has deliberately invoked the jurisdiction of the Rajasthan High Court by filing Writ Petition No.15886/2024 which was afterwards withdrawn on 08.07.2026. While permitting the applicant to withdraw the Writ Petition, the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court did not, in specific terms, exclude the period spent in pursuing the Writ Petition. Therefore, the present OA filed on 05.08.2026 challenging the Memorandum dated 10.05.2024, Annexure A/1, is apparently beyond the period of limitation.

The applicant has not filed any miscellaneous application seeking condonation of the delay caused in filing the OA. Therefore, the present OA is liable to be dismissed on the point of limitation. On the contrary, learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the period of pendency of the Writ Petition before the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court has to be excluded while computing the period of limitation in the present matter. Since the statute excludes the above period. Therefore, the objection raised by learned counsel for the respondents is not tenable. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it emerges that the controversy involved in the present OA was earlier raised by the applicant before the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in SB Civil Writ Petition in the year 2024. While entertaining the Writ Petition, the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court issued notice on 16.10.2024. Thereafter, on 08.07.2026, the applicant prayed to withdraw the Writ Petition, which was allowed with a liberty to file the same before the competent tribunal. Considering the above facts, we are of the view that in the present matter, the provision of section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, comes into play, which says that, in computing the period of limitation for any suit, the time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding shall be excluded where the proceeding relates to the same matter in issue and is prosecuted in good faith in a court which, by reason of a defect of jurisdiction, is unable to entertain it. In the present matter, the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court, after hearing counsel for the petitioner, while entertaining the Writ Petition, not only issued notice to the respondents but also granted interim relief. In the absence of any specific observation of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court made while permitting the applicant to withdraw the Writ Petition with liberty regarding prosecuting the Writ with due diligence and in good faith, we cannot assume that the applicant intentionally, with ulterior motive, invoked the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court. Therefore, time spent in pursuing the matter before the Rajasthan High Court is liable to be excluded from the period of limitation as per the provisions of section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. As a result, the objection raised by learned counsel for the respondents with regard to limitation is rejected. Heard final arguments at the admission stage. Arguments to continue.

List the matter on 17.11.2026. HUKUM SINGH MEENA Member (A) Rameshwar Vyas Member (J) Jitendra Mehta ( pps )