Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1767 (HP)

Ram Lal Sharma v. Union of India

2019-11-21

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA, TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2019
JUDGMENT : TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, J. 1. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal of Original Application by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (circuit at Shimla) (for short 'Tribunal’) vide order dated 08.09.2011, Annexure P-54, the petitioner has filed the instant petition for grant of following reliefs: (a) Writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued and the order of dismissal dated 14.08.1991 (Annexure P-52) passed by respondent No.2, may kindly be quashed and set-aside, as well as, order dated 08.09.2011 (Annexure P-54) passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal may also be quashed and setaside. (b) Directions may kindly be issued to the respondents to order reinstatement of the petitioner from the due date till the date of retirement, with all consequential benefits, including retiral benefits, pension and pensionary benefits for which the petitioner would have been entitled, had he not been dismissed, as the petitioner, as of today, has crossed the age of superannuation. (c) Writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to grant all consequential benefits and monetary benefits from the due date till the date of actual payment may kindly be issued with further directions to the respondents to release all such benefits in favour of the petitioner, within time bound period with interest 9% per annum from the due date till the date of actual payment.” 2. It would be noticed that what has primarily been sought to be quashed in this petition is the order dated 14.8.1991, whereas the cause of action as contemplated under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short 'Act’), a limitation as prescribed under the Act, reads as under: “21. Limitation.— (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) Notwithstanding 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.” 3. Therefore, in the given circumstances, learned Tribunal below had no option but to have dismissed the petition as time barred. 4. Similar issue came up recently before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6640 of 2019, titled Prahlad Raut vs. All India Institute of Medical Sciences, decided on 27th August, 2019 where the petitioner therein had been removed from service and had approached the learned Tribunal after a long lapse of time and the petition was dismissed as being barred by Section 21 of the Act. Before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it was argued that the action of removal from service was a continuing cause of action and entitled the petitioner to approach the Tribunal at any given point of time. 5. The said contention was rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and it was observed that the High Court has rightly held that the law of limitation is founded on public policy. The object of limitation is to put a quietus on stale and dead disputes. A person ought not to be allowed to agitate his claim after a long delay. The said contention was rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and it was observed that the High Court has rightly held that the law of limitation is founded on public policy. The object of limitation is to put a quietus on stale and dead disputes. A person ought not to be allowed to agitate his claim after a long delay. Once there is cessation of employer-employee relationship by an order of termination, the cause of action would necessarily arise when the order of termination is passed (Refer: C.A. No.6640 of 2019 titled Prahlad Raut vs. All India Institute of Medical Sciences, decided on 27th August, 2019). 6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending application (s) if any, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.