Law leans in favour of those who are vigilant: CAT
Srinagar, Feb 4: The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in Srinagar has dismissed a plea by a man who had approached the court after a gap of 20 years, saying the law leans in favour of those who are alert and vigilant.
“It is no more res integra that law leans in favour of those who are alert and vigilant,” a bench of M S Latif Member J said while relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in a matter titled C Jacob versus Director, Geology and Mining.
“Perusal of the file reveals that after a gap of 20 years, the applicant has approached the court after coming out of a deep slumber. In the face of it, the application is miserably time-barred and hit by latches, thus, not maintainable,” the tribunal said and dismissed a plea related to the pensionary benefits of a man.
It also dismissed the application seeking condonation of delay, saying it was bereft of any reason and deserved no consideration.
In response to a submission that the applicant had been approaching the respondents (authorities) by filing representations, therefore, his cause was continuing, the tribunal said: “This court is not inclined to accept this argument because the mere filing of representation does not revive a cause of action, which is already time-barred.”
Citing a Supreme Court judgment, the court said, “Filing a representation alone is not enough to come out of the impediment of a period of limitation, the delay or latches is a relevant factor for the court of law to determine the question as to whether claim made by a applicant government servant deserves consideration and the undue delay may otherwise deprive him or her of the desired benefit.”
While the court observed that admittedly the case of the petitioner pertained to a pensioner, who, at this point, is around 80 years of age, it said: “As already held by this court in several cases pensioners deserve to be treated at least with smile, compassion and sympathy.”
It said: “However that does not mean that every representation of an employee or pensioner made to the Government may be decided to his or her liking or may be replied on merits.”
The court said that representations relating to matters which had become stale or were barred by limitation could be rejected on that ground alone without examining its merits.
“But, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is provided that the respondents, if they so choose, may consider the case of the applicant keeping in view his age, which is more than 80 years by now and give due regard to the concept of smile and compassion,” it said.
