The Author, Prakhar Bhatnagar is Partner at Amicus Legal, Advocates & Solicitors. He is practicing in various forums in Delhi.
The Government Servants are well aware of their rights. They also keep abreast with the reports of Central Pay Commission and various office memoranda passed by Department of Personnel and Training.
In case of any action inconsistent to the service rules, Central Government Servants seek redressal of their grievances by filing Original Applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal. Fora for State Government Servants are their respective State Administrative Tribunal.
Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 would cast a duty on an employee to first ventilate her grievance by submitting a representation to the authority from whom the relief is sought. Following can happen subsequent to the submission of the representation:
(a) Representation may be allowed and the relief sought by the Applicant may be granted.
(b) Representation may be disposed of but relief may not be granted.
(c) Representation may not even be disposed of i.e. it is kept pending.
No cause of action would accrue in case the Applicant gets the desired relief after submission of representation. In case a representation is disposed of but turned down, Section 20 would allow an Applicant to challenge the authority’s order/communication/letter turning down the representation. In the event the representation is not even disposed of, Section 20 would direct an Applicant to file an Original Application if the representation remained unanswered for a period of six months. Six month rule is directory and not mandatory as but naturally some Applicant may require very urgent directions against a Government action e.g. an event of an Applicant being arbitrarily ordered to be transferred in contravention of extant transfer policy.
However, alike any civil suit for recovery or a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act etc, the laws of limitations and the principles of delay, latches and acquiescence come into play even in respect of claims pertaining to service.
Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 further provides for the limitation period of filing an Original Application. The same is one year from the date of order/letter/communication turning down an Applicant’s representation i.e. till the expiry of one year from the date of order/letter/communication turning down an Applicant’s representation; such Applicant would be entitled to file an Original Application. Similarly, till the expiry of one year from the expiry of six months of non response to an Applicant’s representation, the Applicant can maintain an Original Application. The power of condoning the delay is also vested with the Administrative Tribunal upon an Applicant showing sufficient cause for not filing the Original Application in prescribed time.
There may be a situation when an Applicant may bring a belated service claim before Administrative Tribunals/Courts and Tribunal/Court may direct the employer authority to consider the same. Will such a direction from the Tribunal/Court infuse life in a dead/stale service claim? The aforesaid controversy has been put to rest by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by its pronouncement dated 13.02.2019 in Union of India & Ors. Versus C. Girija & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 1577 of 2019).
The Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment relied upon its own judgment in C. Jacob Vs. Director of Geology and Mining and Another (2008) 10 SCC 115 and held many a times Courts/Tribunals commit the error of passing a direction to consider an Applicant’s representation. Applicant then challenges the outcome of consideration before the Court/Tribunals. In the process the bar of delay and laches gets waived.
The Hon’ble Apex Court also relied upon its judgment in Union of India & Ors. Vs. M.K. Sarkar, (2010) 2 SCC 59 wherein it was held that the issue of limitation or delay and laches should be considered with reference to the original cause of action and not with reference to the date on which order is passed in compliance with a court’s direction. It was held that even if a Court had passed a direction to consider some service claim, the same would not erase the delay and laches.
Relying upon the above authorities the Apex Court dismissed did not grant relief to the Applicants since their claims were belated.
Hence, it is to be borne in mind that Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 only prescribes the limitation to file Original Application upon the kind of treatment meted out to an Applicant’s representation. In other words, the limitation prescribed in Section 21 does not govern the delay and latches of a service claim. Hence, in order be a better adversary before the Administrative Tribunal, an Applicant should not only have a good case on merits but she should also raise her grievances within time.
Picture Source :
