9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of limitation period under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. 2. Application for condonation of delay. 3. Admissibility of Original Application beyond the prescribed limitation period. Analysis: Issue 1: Interpretation of limitation period under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 The case involved a dispute regarding the promotion of an individual to the post of Assistant Legislative Draftsman (Hindi) class II (gazetted) in Himachal Pradesh. The main contention revolved around the limitation period provided under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The respondent filed an Original Application (O.A.) challenging the promotion after the expiry of three years from the date of the promotion order. The appellants argued that the O.A. was time-barred as it exceeded the statutory limitation period. The Tribunal was urged to dismiss the O.A. based on this ground. Issue 2: Application for condonation of delay The respondent contended that a second representation was made after the rejection of the initial representation, which should reset the starting point for the limitation period. However, the appellants emphasized that no formal application for condonation of delay was submitted as per Section 21(3) of the Act. The failure to seek condonation of delay within the prescribed legal framework was highlighted as a crucial point in determining the admissibility of the O.A. Issue 3: Admissibility of Original Application beyond the prescribed limitation period Upon review, the Court found that the respondent's explanation for the delay in filing the O.A. was not substantiated before the Tribunal. The Court emphasized that the respondent had the opportunity to apply for condonation of delay under Section 21(3) but failed to do so. As a result, the Court concluded that the O.A. filed beyond the three-year limitation period could not be entertained or decided on its merits. Citing legal precedent, the Court set aside the Tribunal's order and dismissed the O.A. based on the grounds of limitation. In conclusion, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the Tribunal's decision and dismissing the Original Application due to being time-barred. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory provisions regarding limitation periods and the necessity of following proper legal procedures, including seeking condonation of delay when applicable.
|
