Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 459 (HP)

GOPI CHAND v. STATE OF H. P.

2005-12-05

M.R.VERMA, S.S.NEGI

body2005
ORDER M.R. Verma, J. (Retd.), Chairman - The applicants in this original application have claimed that the final seniority list dated June 29, 1990 (Annexure-PA) be quashed and set aside with seniority list assigning the position therein to the applicants with reference to the date of their initial appointments and place then senior to such direct recruits who were appointed after them. 2. The respondents 3 to 12, 14 to 25, 27 to 49, 51 to 57, 80 and 81 in their reply raised the preliminary objection that the present original application was barred by limitation. The respondents 1 and 2 though did not raise a specific objection regarding limitation in their reply, however, at the time of hearing such objection was raised as a preliminary objection. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned Addl. Advocate General and learned counsel for private respondents and have also perused the material placed on record. 4. It is not in dispute that tentative seniority list was circulated on may 23,1990 and final seniority list was circulated on June 29, 1990. Thus in the ordinary course to assail the final seniority list the time started running on June 2, 1990. The applicants admittedly did not assail such final seniority list within one year of its circulation i.e. June 29.1990. It is also not the case of the applicants that they made any representation against tentative seniority list which was not disposed of before the issue of the final seniority list nor it is their case that they represented against the final seniority list within some reasonable time. It is however averred by them that they made representation against final seniority list but without disclosing the date of making such representation. However, a perusal of Annexure-PB rejecting their representation discloses that such representation was dated July 25.1991. Thus the applicants made representation against the final seniority list after expiry of a period of one year from the date of circulation of the final seniority list by which time the prescribed period to assail such list by way of filing an application under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act (hereafter referred to as the Act) had already expired. Thus the applicants made representation against the final seniority list after expiry of a period of one year from the date of circulation of the final seniority list by which time the prescribed period to assail such list by way of filing an application under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act (hereafter referred to as the Act) had already expired. Any representation or appeal preferred by the applicants after expiry of period of limitation for filing the original application will not extend the period of limitation as provided under Section 21 of the Act and will not give a new lease of life to their claim. 5. In Ms. Savitri Chauhan v. State of HP. & Ors., OA No. 1747/1995 decided on November 17, 2005. 2005 (Suppl.) Cur. L.J. (H.P.) 311 this Tribunal has held as under: - "It is clear from the above provisions that an original application has to be filed by the aggrieved employee within one year of the passing of the final order within the meaning of Section 20 of the Act. In case any order is appealable or a representation lies against such order the time would run against the employee from the date on which such appeal or representation had been finally disposed of and in case no final order are passed on such appeal or representation, which six months the employee can prefer an application under Section 19 of the Act, within one year from the expiry of six months from the date of filing of the appeal or the representation. Such application can be admitted by the Tribunal after expiry of the aforesaid prescribed period only if the applicant satisfies the Tribunal that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period." 6. It was further held:- "Where an aggrieved servant has allowed his remedy to 1 become time barred, he cannot be permitted to get fresh lease of life merely by filing a belated representation or time barred appeals. The casual representation or representation not provided in the service rules cannot have the effect of extending the period of limitation " 7. It was further held:- "Where an aggrieved servant has allowed his remedy to 1 become time barred, he cannot be permitted to get fresh lease of life merely by filing a belated representation or time barred appeals. The casual representation or representation not provided in the service rules cannot have the effect of extending the period of limitation " 7. It may be pointed out that in a case where an application under Section 19 has been filed after the period of limitation, the applicant may file application for condonation of delay in filing the application and in case the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the original application within the period of limitation, such delay can be condoned. In the case in hand, the applicants have not made any application for condonation of delay nor have brought on record the facts which may constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing this original application. On the contrary the bare averment made by them in para 5 of the original application is that the application is within limitation prescribed under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 which in fact, it is not. 6. In view of above, the present original application being barred by limitation merits dismissal and is accordingly dismissed.