03.04.2025 (D/L-3) Ct. No.4 (B.K.N.) W.P.C.T. 106 of 2012 With CAN 2 of 2025 Radha Raman Nandy Vs. Union of India & Ors. Mr. Santanu Mukherjee, Ms. Madhumita Kar, Ms. Gargi Saha ...for the Petitioner Mr. S. Chakraborty, Mrs. Sarda Sha ...for the Respondents/U.O.I. In Re: CAN 2 of 2025 1. An application bearing CAN No. 2 of 2025 has been filed for restoration in view of the dismissal in default on 13th January, 2016. 2. The learned counsel for the applicant draws attention of the court towards averments made in paragraph 3 of the application for restoration. 3. The reason which has been assigned to sustain the default in appearance on 13th January, 2016 is omission to mark the case on the daily cause list. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to inadvertence such a situation has arisen. Inadvertent alt being that of the office of the advocate, the petitioner should not be made to suffer. 5. Considering the reasons assigned in the CAN application which we find the same to constitute sufficient cause for restoration of the writ petition. We 2 direct the restoration of the writ application to its original file and number. 6. CAN 2 of 2025 stands allowed. 7. The learned counsels have proceeded to make submissions on the merits of the matter we, therefore, proceeded to consider the main writ petition on merits. In Re: W.P.C.T. 106 of 2012 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The claim for the petitioner is for regularization of his casual services which he claims to have performed in between 1978 to 1991. 3. The petitioner earlier approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”) by filing O.A. No. 1296 of 1994. As per the order dated 16th July, 2001 passed in O.A. 1296 of 1994 it appears that the petitioner was claiming regularization along with others in the said Original Application on a ground that those juniors to the petitioner have been regularized. 4. The Tribunal could not find such case being made out and, therefore, disposed of the O.A. 1296 of 1994 directing the respondents to enquire as to whether any person junior to the applicant have been engaged. Only if such engagement would be established, then it was directed that the respondents may be required to 3 consider the claim according to Rules. For completing this exercise two months was granted to the respondents. 5. About four months thereafter the petitioner has made a representation seeking his regularization. The representation is dated 6th November, 2001 wherein he has given details of work claimed to have been performed by him intermittently in between 1978 to 1991. In all these years, excepting 1988 he claimed to be working for about five to six months in a year. In 1988 he has claimed to have worked 240 days. Similar claim has been reiterated successively by making representations on 5th November, 2002; 20th July, 2003; 1st August, 2004; 4th June, 2005; 19th December, 2006; 1st February, 2007 and 24th September, 2007. 6. Having made series of representations relying upon the last work performed by him in the year 1991 the petitioner has preferred the Original Application bearing O.A. No. 1046 of 2007 seeking the same relief of regularization, again. The Tribunal has dismissed the Original Application. 7. Before the Tribunal, the authorities have taken a stand that the petitioners were casual labourers and the nature of their engagement being purely casual they have no claim for regularization. They have also taken a stand before the Tribunal that the petitioner did not 4 fulfil the essential criteria of working for 240 days in a calendar year for two consecutive years as per DOPT O.M. 26th October, 1984 they have emphatically denied any junior of the petitioner being regularized. The Tribunal has considered the stand of the rival parties. 8. We find that it is evident from the representation/s filed by the petitioner over a period of seven years that in none of the representations he has claimed any junior to have been regularized. 9. It is also not his case that he has worked for 240 days in two consecutive calendar years. So as to entitle him to claim any benefit under DOPT O.M. dated 26th October, 1984. Even otherwise it is the claim of the petitioner that he has intermittently worked between 1978 to 1991. There is no continuous work claimed by him over a period of 10 years so as to entitle him to any benefit in terms of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka –Vs.- Umadevi & Ors. reported in (2006) 4 SCC 415. The petitioner, therefore, did not make out any claim which could be enforced by issuance or direction for considering the petitioner for regularization, let alone to regularise him. 10. We further find that the Tribunal has taken note of the fact that the claim of the petitioner is also barred on the ground of limitations. Since the petitioner has approached the Tribunal seven years after he made the 5 first representation. We also find no infirmity in such view of the Tribunal. It is by now trite law that repeated filing of representations will not enlarge the time or will not enable an applicant/petitioner to overcome the issue of delay and latches. The filing of representations for seven years, therefore, does not enure to the petitioner’s benefit and the Tribunal’s view that the application was liable to be rejected on limitation alone, also in our opinion does not require any interference. In this connection we consider it apposite to reproduce the relevant extract from the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Surjeet Singh Sahni –Vs.- State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. reported in (2022) 15 SCC 536: “8. As observed by this Court in a catena of decisions, mere representation does not extend the period of limitation and the aggrieved person has to approach the Court expeditiously and within a reasonable time. If it is found that the writ petitioner is guilty of delay and laches, the High Court should dismiss it at the threshold and ought not to dispose of the writ petition by relegating the writ petitioner to file a representation and/or directing the authority to decide the representation, once it is found that the original writ petitioner is guilty of delay and laches. Such order shall not give an opportunity to the petitioner to thereafter contend that rejection of the representation subsequently has given a fresh cause of action.” 11. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (Madhuresh Prasad, J.) (Supratim Bhattacharya, J.)