Central Administrative Tribunal - DelhiArvind Kumar vs M/O Shipping on 25 September, 2017Central Administrative Tribunal
                    Principal Bench

                   OA No.3383/2017

        New Delhi, this the 25th of September, 2017

      Hon'ble Mr. Justice Permod Kohli, Chairman
       Hon'ble Mr. K.N. Shrivastava, Member (A)

Arvind Kumar, Age 40, Group „B‟
S/o Late Shri Jagdish Prasad Gupta
House No.AC-45, Tagore Garden
Working as "Junior Engineer"
New Delhi-110027.                              ..Applicant

(By Advocate: Shri Yogesh Kumar Mahur)

                         Versus
1.   The Union of India
     Through its Secretary
     Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways
     1 Parliament Street
     New Delhi-110001.

2.   The Officer Commanding
     109, Road Construction Coy.(GREF)
     General Reserve Engineering Force
     C/o 56 APO

3.   The Executive Engineer(Civil)
     Second in Command
     109, Road Construction Coy.(GREF)
     General Reserve Engineering Force
     C/o 56 APO

4.   The Superintending Engineer
     Health Maintenance Circle
     Public Works Department
     LNJP Hospital
     Delhi-110006.                          ..Respondents
                              2                        OA No.3383/2017



                       ORDER (ORAL)Justice Permod Kohli :-The   applicant   was       serving   in   the   Border     Road

Organisation(Central Reserve Engineer Force) under Ministry

of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways as Draughtsman

Grade-II as a Civilian where he joined on 12.12.2002. While

he was serving on the aforesaid post, some vacancies of

Junior Engineer(Civil) were advertised by the CPWD. The

applicant applied for the said post with the „No Objection

Certificate‟ from the parent organisation and on qualifying

the examination, he was selected on the post of Junior

Engineer in the CPWD. With a view to join new organisation,

the applicant submitted his resignation on 25.08.2005. He

was discharged from the service under the Ministry of

Shipping, Road Transport and Highways vide discharge order

dated 23.09.2005. The entry in the column against which

reason for discharge is given indicates as follows:"Discharged from service on his own request"Vide a separate order dated 22.09.2005, sanction was

granted for termination of services of the applicant as a

GREF personnel. This was on the basis of recommendation

for acceptance of resignation from GREF Service w.e.f.

24.09.2005. The applicant joined the CPWD department in

October, 2005. He made a representation dated 14.02.20063                            OA No.3383/2017for counting of his past service for pension and other

benefits. It seems that this representation remained pending

for number of years where upon the applicant made another

representation on 03.01.2011 which was followed by further

two representations dated 17.02.2011 and 10.06.2011. The

representation of the applicant was rejected vide Annexure

A-2, July, 2011 order with the following statement:-"2. In this regard it is once again informed that you
     resigned from service at your own request. Accordingly,
     you were discharged from service in accordance with
     Rule 5(1) B of CCS (Temporary) w.e.f. 25 Sep. 2005.
     As such the resignation submitted by you is not "a
     technical resignation" on entire forfeiture of past
     service"2.   After rejection of his request, the applicant remained

silent till he made another representation on 24.05.2017.

This representation has also been rejected in terms of the

earlier   communication     vide        letter   dated    13.06.2017

(Annexure A-7). The relevant extract of the letter reads as

under:-"2. In reference to your above said letter
           regarding it. It is to inform you that the
           resignation which you have been released from
           service at your own request, which is not a
           Technical resignation. In this regard this unit has
           informed    you     earlier   vide   unit    Letter
           No.C.F/XG.S.-185146K/A.K.?24/E1              dated
           05.07.2011."3.   It   is   admitted   case     of    the     applicant    that     his

representation for counting the past service was rejected in4                     OA No.3383/2017July, 2011. The applicant never challenged the said order.

Period of limitation commence from the expiry of six months

of making of representation, if such representation is not

decided and expires one year thereafter. The second

representation filed by the applicant dated 24.05.2017 does

not give any fresh cause of action. In any case, the second

representation has been rejected in terms of the earlier

rejection order dated 05.07.2011, no fresh cause of action

accrues.4.     The OA is hopelessly barred by time. In para 3 of the

OA, the applicant has stated that the OA is within the period

of limitation which is not a correct statement.5.     Under Rule 26 of the Pension Rules, it is provided that

resignation from service or a post entails forfeiture of past

service. Therefore, looking into all the aspects, this OA is

liable to be dismissed both on the question of limitation as

also on merits.( K.N. Shrivastava)              (Justice Permod Kohli)
   Member(A)                           Chairman


/vb/