Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2129 (RAJ)

Narsingh v. Central Administrative Tribunal

2005-08-11

MANAK MOHTA

body2005
Judgment N.N. Mathur, J.-By way of instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench dated 20.09.2000, whereby the Original Application No. 318/1998 has been dismissed as barred by limitation. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, he was appointed as a casual employee with effect from 21.08.1966. Thereafter, he was shifted as Cleaner with effect from 30.12.1968. He was declared surplus with effect from 07.01.1970. He qualified B-1 medical examination for the post of Engine Lighter. He was posted as cleaner with effect from 21.01.1972. However, he was placed in the panel of Engine Lighter as per the order dated 01.03.1973. By order dated 12.05.1975, he was appointed as Loco Engine Lighter. Thus, the seniority was determined considering him Engine Lighter. In the seniority list dated 12.05.1975/04.06.1975, his name appeared at S. No. 341 showing his initial appointment as on 17.04.1970. In the year 1980, one more seniority list of cleaners was published wherein the petitioner was assigned seniority at S. No. 512. The seniority position of the petitioner remained intact in the seniority list published in the year 1983 and 1986. In the year 1987, petitioner sought modification of the seniority with reference to his promotion. However, the representation was rejected vide communication dated 23.03.1987 on the ground that he was given promotion as per the seniority lists of the year 1980, 1983 and 1986. However, the respondents changed the petitioner’s seniority from S. No. 237 to 298-A i.e., above Shri Suresh Chandra and below Shri Shanti Prakash vide communication dated 13.02.1992. Thus, the petitioner made a representation stating inter alia that his seniority which had attained finality twelve years back, could not have been challenged. Petitioner’s representation was rejected vide Annexure R/1 dated 01.04.1992. However, he continued to make repeated representations. The last representation was rejected vide order dated 04.06.1998. 3. Petitioner filed the Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, hereinafter referred to as “the Act”, for quashing the order dated 04.06.1998. 4. The respondents raised a preliminary objection of the Original Application being barred by limitation. The Tribunal found that the representation was rejected vide order 01.04.1992 Annexure R/1, as such, the Original Application was barred by limitation, which was presented in November, 1998. 5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. The respondents raised a preliminary objection of the Original Application being barred by limitation. The Tribunal found that the representation was rejected vide order 01.04.1992 Annexure R/1, as such, the Original Application was barred by limitation, which was presented in November, 1998. 5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. It appears that vide Annexure R/1 dated 01.04.1992, petitioner was asked to produce certain documents within a period of one week. For ready reference, Annexure R/1 produced in the instant writ petition as Annexure 7 is reproduced as follows: e.My dk;kZ y; m0 js 0 tks/kiqj la [;k% 729bZ@bZ0Mh0@ujflag@2554@72 fnukad 01041992 Jh ujflag 2554 Mhty lgk;d }kjk&yksdks Qksjesu@tks/kiqjA fo"k;%&Dyhuj ojh;rk fu/kkZj.k gsrqA “mRrj jsyos lUnHkZ%&vkidk vH;kosnu fnukad 10031992qwlkj bl vkidh fu; fDr batu ykbVj&Qkn Mªkij o V;~c Dyhuj ds lu~ 1973 ds iSuy dh eSfjV 16 ds vuqy; ds i= fnukad 12051975 ds vuqqdk;kZlkj fu;fer batu ykbVj ds in ij gqbZ FkhA vr% vkidh fu; fDr frfFk uk lgh izrhr ugha gksq17041970 gksrk gS vxj fQj Hkh vkidh fu;fDr 17041970 gksus ls lcafa/kr dksbZ dkxtkr gksa rks og bl dk;kZa ,d lIrkg esr djsa vU;Fkk bl dk;kZy; esa izLrqy; ds i= fnukad 13021992 }kjk vkidh fu; qfDr frfFk12051975 ekudj tks ojh;rk dk iqu% fu/kkZj.k fd;k x;k gS] og lgh le>k tk;xs!k g0 1@4 -rs e.My dkfeZd vf /kdkjh m0 js0 tks/kiqj Qkj flxuspj Iyht g- Mhyj 1@4@1992 g0 1@4 ,,ihvks@ihlh” 6. A reading of the aforesaid communication dated 01.04.1992 discloses that petitioner was asked to produce evidence to show that if he was appointed on 17.04.1970, he may produce the same within one week, otherwise his appointment shall be treated as per the communication dated 13.02.1992. It further appears that he continued to make representations. The last representation was rejected vide order dated 04.06.1998 Annexure 6. It further appears that he continued to make representations. The last representation was rejected vide order dated 04.06.1998 Annexure 6. The communication dated 04.06.1998 (Annexure 6) is extracted as follows: “mRrj jsyos e.My dk;kZ y; m0 js 0 tks/kiqj la [;k% 729bZ@bZ02Mh0@ujflag@2554@89 fnukad 04061998 Jh ujflag 2554 ofj"B Mhty lgk;d }kjk yksdks QksjeSu@tks/kiqj fo"k;%&ofjrk la’kks/ku ds fo:) vkifÙkA lanHkZ%&vkidk vH;kosnu fnuakd 12051995 vkids mijksDr lanfHkZr vH;kosnu ds lEcU/k esa ys[k gS fd bl dk;kZy; esa miyC/k fjdkMZ ds vuqlkj vkidh fu;fDr fn 17041968 dks Sub Engine Lighter ds in ij gqbZ Fkh vkSqj rRi’pkr~ i= la[;k 220@bZ@100@ih 2 th@Screening@yksdks@71@x@ fnukad 01031973 dks tkjh iSuy ij vkidk uke Tube Cleaner Fire Dropper & Engine Lighter ds iSuy ij esfjV ua 16 ij j[kk x;kA bl dk;kZy; ds i= la[;k 220bZ@100@ih 2 th fnukad 12051975 }kjk Temp. Loco Engine Lighter grade 196-232 {vkj ,l} esa :- 196@& dk in vkWQj fd;k x;k rFkk le la[;d i= fnukad 12051975 }kjk Temp. Loco Engine Lighter esa in ij fu; qfDr nh xbZA vr% bl dk;kZy; ds i= 847b@bZ 2Mh@yksdks@Dyhuj@ofj"Brk@3@fnukad 13021992 }kjk fu/kkZfjr ofj;rk lgh gSA ,l Mh@ -rs e.My dkfEkZd vf /kdkjh mRrj jsYos tks/kiqj” 7. A reading of Annexure 6 shows that by the said communication, it was finally held that the petitioner’s seniority assigned under communication dated 13.02.1992 is final. 8. On the basis of the aforesaid two communications, it is submitted by Mr. Kuldeep Mathur, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, that the petitioner’s representation was finally decided by order dated 04.06.1998 and, as such, the limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 be computed from the said date. The Original Application was filed in the month of November, 1998, as such, it was within limitation. 9. On the other hand, it is submitted by Mr. Salil Trivedi, learned Counsel appearing for the Railway Administration, that the petitioner’s representation was rejected by order dated 01.04.1992, Annexure 7 (Annexure R/1). He was given an opportunity to produce the evidence to show that he was given appointment in the year 1970. It was clearly stipulated in the said letter that if he failed to produce any evidence in that regard within one week, the seniority list published under communication dated 13.02.1992 shall be final. Simply making representations will not extend the period of limitation. The communication dated 04.06.1998 is nothing but rejection of subsequent representations. 10. It was clearly stipulated in the said letter that if he failed to produce any evidence in that regard within one week, the seniority list published under communication dated 13.02.1992 shall be final. Simply making representations will not extend the period of limitation. The communication dated 04.06.1998 is nothing but rejection of subsequent representations. 10. We have considered the rival contentions. Section 21 of the Act provides the limitation. The provision reads as follows:-“21. Limitation.-(1) A Tribunal shall not admit an application,- a) In a case where a final order such as is mentioned in Clause (a) of Sub-section (2) of Section 20 has been made in connection with the grievance unless the application is made, within one year from the date on which such final order has been made; b) In a case where an appeal or representation such as is mentioned in Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 20 has been made and a period of six months had expired thereafter without such final order having been made, within one year from the date of expiry of the said period of six months. 2) Not withstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1), where- (a) the grievance in respect of which an application is made had arisen by reason of any order made at any time during the period of three years immediately preceding the date on which the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunal becomes exercisable under this Act in respect of the matter to which such order relates; and b) no proceedings for the redressal of such grievance had been commenced before the said date before any High Court, the application shall be entertained by the Tribunal if it is made within the period referred to in Clause (a), or, as the case may be, Clause (b), of Sub-section (1) or within a period of six months from the said date, whichever period expires later. 3) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2), an application may be admitted after the period of one year specified in Clause (a) or Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) or, as the case may be, the period of six months specified in Sub-section (2), if the applicant satisfies the Tribunal that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period.” 11. It is significant to notice that under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act, limitation of one year has been provided from the date of final order. The term “final order” has to be construed with reference to scheme of remedies provided under the rules and instructions governing the employee. When the aggrieved employee prefers appeal and thereafter makes statutory representation against dispute regarding adverse remarks, then the final order would be the rejection of representation made, for the purpose of computing limitation under Section 21. 12. In the instant case, the petitioner’s representation was not finally decided by order dated 01.04.1992 (Annexure 7) as he was given an opportunity to produce further documents to show that he was initially appointed on 17.04.1970. It is of course true that repeated representations do not provide a fresh cause of action. In the instant case, the representation of the petitioner was not finally decided by order dated 01.04.1992 (Annexure 7). A bare reading of order dated 04.06.1998 Annexure 6 shows that on consideration of the entire matter on merit, the authority concluded that the seniority assigned under the communication dated 13.02.1992 taking the date of appointment as 12.05.1975, is correct. In the said letter, it has been observed in terms that- “........vr% bl dk;kZy; ds i= 847b@bZ 2 Mh@yksdks@Dyhuj@ofj"Brk@3@fnukad 13.02.1992 }kjk fu/kkZfjr ofj;rk lgh gSA 13. Thus, in the instant case, the cause of action has arisen on 04.06.1998. The Original Application was filed in November, 1998. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal was clearly in error in considering the Original Application barred by limitation. 14. Consequently, we allow the writ petition and set aside the order of the Tribunal dated 20.09.2000. The Original Application No. 318/1998 is restored to its original number, with direction to decide afresh on merits.