Facts
Raj Kumar, the applicant’s husband, was removed from Railway service in 2000 for unauthorised absence of 15 days.
Source reference: para. 4–6He had reportedly been away because of his father’s illness and death.
Source reference: para. 4–6In 2006, the Revisional Authority advised that the punishment be considered sympathetically, but no change was made to the removal order.
Source reference: para. 4–6Raj Kumar died in 2008.
Source reference: para. 4–6His 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. 4–6She filed the present application in 2020, seeking to set aside the removal order and obtain consequential benefits.
Source reference: para. 4–6The Tribunal noted that compassionate allowance had been granted to Raj Kumar under an office order dated 7 June 2010.
Source reference: para. 10Issues
Whether the widow’s 2020 challenge to the removal order dated 10 October 2000 was barred by limitation.
Source reference: para. 11–12Whether the Tribunal should grant relief against the removal order, notwithstanding the compassionate allowance already granted to the deceased employee.
Source reference: para. 9–12Law Applied
Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, provides the basis for approaching the Tribunal by application.
Source reference: para. 3The Tribunal applied the principle that a challenge brought long after the impugned order may be dismissed as barred by limitation.
Source reference: para. 12It 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, 12Reasoning
The removal order was made in 2000, and the employee died in 2008; the present application was filed in 2020.
Source reference: para. 11–12The 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. 11–12It 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. 12The order does not set out a separate limitation calculation or identify the governing limitation provision.
Source reference: no citationHolding
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. 13No further relief was granted.
Source reference: para. 13Acts & Sections Cited
1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Administrative Tribunals Act, 19851
Original Court PDF
Maya DevivsEastern Railway
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
![A challenge to a 20-year-old removal order is barred by limitation.. Maya Devi vs Eastern Railway. CAT - ['Kolkata']. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/a-challenge-to-a-20-year-old-removal-order-is-barred-by-limitation-50b0b3585b284770858f71f3ae729ddf.webp)