AMITAVA LALA, J. - (1.) THESE writ petitions have been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 4th March, 2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, by which the Original Application Nos. 221 of 2009 and 222 of 2009 were dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. The petitioners have contended that they have made successive representations since 22nd July, 1998. The date of last representation is 8th August, 2007. It is made for the purpose of regularisation of their service after completion of requisite number of days of total working. The Union of India, on the other hand, has contended that once the Original Applications were dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, if they are direcLed for consideration of the cause, it will lead to future litigation.
(2.) WE are of the view that we are not sitting in the appellate forum from the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal is Court of first instance in view of the judgment reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261, L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and others. We are sitting here to render equitable justice irrespective of the order passed by the Tribunal. But in the process we should not be forgetful about laying clown provision of law made for the Tribunal. Since the Original Applications have been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches we do not to interfere in such order. In (2007) 9 SCC 274, Shiv Dass v. Union of India and others, the Supreme Court has held as follows "Normally, in the case of belated approach writ petition has to be dismissed. Delay or laches is one of the factors to be borne in mind by the High Courts when they exercise their, discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. In an appropriate case the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to -assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite party. Even where fundamental right is involved the matter is still within the discretion of the Court. Of course, the discretion has to be exercised judicially and reasonably." (Emphasis supplied) In AIR 1980 SC 1894, Gian Singh Mann v. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana and another, we find that the inordinate delay could not be overlooked on the ground that the petitioner has made successive representations to the Department. It says that the pendency of the representation will not be adequate explanation to overlook the delay similarly after turning down one representation making another on the similar ground will also not explain the delay. Therefore, the petitioners can not get any affirmative order against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal on the ground of delay and laches. Hence, the writ petitions are dismissed on such ground without imposing any cost.
(3.) NOW , it is open for the railway authority to consider or not to consider independently the cause of regularisation of the petitioner, if any, from the panel of the casual workers from which reportedly juniors have been accommodated. Petitions dismissed.;