CAT - ['Kolkata']
Administrative and Public LawEmployment and Labour Law

A challenge to a 20-year-old removal order is barred by limitation.

Maya Devi vs Eastern Railway

CAT - ['Kolkata']JUDGMENT: September 07, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
A challenge to a 20-year-old removal order is barred by limitation.. Maya Devi vs Eastern Railway. CAT - ['Kolkata']. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

Raj Kumar, the applicant’s husband, was removed from Railway service in 2000 for unauthorised absence of 15 days.

Source reference: para. 4–6

He had reportedly been away because of his father’s illness and death.

Source reference: para. 4–6

In 2006, the Revisional Authority advised that the punishment be considered sympathetically, but no change was made to the removal order.

Source reference: para. 4–6

Raj Kumar died in 2008.

Source reference: para. 4–6

His widow later pursued representations and earlier proceedings before the Tribunal; in O.A. No. 918/2016, she was granted liberty to challenge the punishment order in accordance with law.

Source reference: para. 4–6

She filed the present application in 2020, seeking to set aside the removal order and obtain consequential benefits.

Source reference: para. 4–6

The Tribunal noted that compassionate allowance had been granted to Raj Kumar under an office order dated 7 June 2010.

Source reference: para. 10
02

Issues

Whether the widow’s 2020 challenge to the removal order dated 10 October 2000 was barred by limitation.

Source reference: para. 11–12

Whether the Tribunal should grant relief against the removal order, notwithstanding the compassionate allowance already granted to the deceased employee.

Source reference: para. 9–12
03

Law Applied

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, provides the basis for approaching the Tribunal by application.

Source reference: para. 3

The Tribunal applied the principle that a challenge brought long after the impugned order may be dismissed as barred by limitation.

Source reference: para. 12

It also considered the compassionate allowance already granted to the employee following removal, but did not identify a specific statutory provision, rule, or precedent governing that allowance.

Source reference: para. 10, 12
04

Reasoning

The removal order was made in 2000, and the employee died in 2008; the present application was filed in 2020.

Source reference: para. 11–12

The Tribunal observed that the removal order had not been challenged before a court while Raj Kumar was alive and held that the later challenge was “hopelessly barred by limitation”.

Source reference: para. 11–12

It further found that the employee’s interests had already been protected, to the extent recognised by the authorities, through the grant of compassionate allowance.

Source reference: para. 12

The order does not set out a separate limitation calculation or identify the governing limitation provision.

Source reference: no citation
05

Holding

The Tribunal held that the challenge to the 2000 removal order was barred by limitation.

The Tribunal dismissed the application without costs.

Source reference: para. 13

No further relief was granted.

Source reference: para. 13
06

Acts & Sections Cited

1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.

Administrative Tribunals Act, 19851

CAT - ['Kolkata']

Original Court PDF

Maya DevivsEastern Railway

CAT - ['Kolkata'] · September 07, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment