- (1.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition, challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Circuit Bench at Ranchi in O.A. No. 129 of 2011(R), whereby the learned Tribunal dismissed the Original Application as time barred.
(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Daily Rated Gangman on 30.11.1989 and he worked for a period of 259 days. During that period, 2nd respondent issued a notification calling for appointment of 280 Gangmen vide notification dated 21.6.1990 and the petitioner also made an application on 22.6.1990 for his appointment as regular Gangman. On 24.6.1990, the petitioner along with a few others were sent for medical test and the petitioner was declared medically unfit in category B-1. Thereafter the petitioner was not allowed to work even in the Daily Rated post of Gangman with effect from 27.2.1992. The petitioner along with similarly situated persons moved the Tribunal in Cuttack Bench in O.A. No.373 of 1995 and on 19.11.1996, the same was disposed of with an observation that Cuttack Bench has no jurisdiction. Thereafter the petitioner moved the Tribunal, Patna Bench in O.A. No.799 of 1998 and the same was disposed of on 9.4.1999 with the direction to the petitioner to file suitable representation and with further direction to the respondents to decide the matter. The petitioner's representation was rejected by the respondents.
(3.) In the meantime, in the case of one Gangman, Ghanshyam Giri, who was terminated on the same ground, the Orissa High Court passed an order dated 5.2.2003 in O.J.C. No.4993/1999, directing the respondents to consider his case, following which the said case of Gangman, Ghanshyam Giri has been reinstated. The petitioner submitted fresh representation before the respondents on 7.11.2003 but the same was not considered. Thereafter the petitioner filed O.A. No.317 of 2004 and in the said petition, the Tribunal directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation keeping in view the observations made by the Tribunal. The 3rd respondent reconsidered the matter and rejected the case of the petitioner by the order dated 21.4.2005. The petitioner submitted various representations between 2006 and 2009 but there was no response from the respondents. In the meantime, in respect of other cases of non-selection of Gangman due to medical unfitness, the Tribunal passed the order in various original applications to provide alternative appointment to those candidates who were not selected due to medical unfitness. The petitioner filed representation dated 15.6.2010 for alternative appointment, but the respondents did not take any action. Thereafter, the petitioner filed O.A. No.129 of 2011 and the learned Tribunal disposed of the same holding that the application is time barred.;