Khinvsara Vs. Union of India & Ors  INSC305 (17 March 1997)
RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI
O R D
E R Delay condoned. Leave granted.
have heard learned counsel on both sides.
appeal, by special leave, arises from the order of the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Jodhpur, made on April 16,1996 in O.A No. 466/94.
appellant was initially suspended and charge sheet was laid against him on April 29, 1974, His order of dismissal was
ultimately set aside and thereafter he was reinstated into the service by the
Tribunal's order dated March
13, 1992 in O.A. No.
261/91. It would appear that while setting aside the order of dismissal the
Tribunal had passed the order that the appellant was entitled to all
consequential benefits which he could have earned had he been in service. since
in spite of his representations, he was not given consequential benefits, he
filed contempt application of December 11, 1992,
which was dismissed by the Tribunal on July 29, 1993. Thereafter, the appellant filed
the present O.A. for a direction to implement the order dated March 13, 1992. The Tribunal dismissed the same by
the impugned order dated April
16,1996 on the ground
that the application of the appellant was barred by limitation. Thus this appeal
by special leave.
only question is : whether the application seeking implementation of the
earlier order of the Tribunal was barred by limitation of the earlier order of
the Tribunal was barred by limitation? section 27 of the Administrative Tribunals
Act, 1985 (for short, 'the Act') envisages thus:
Execution of orders of a Tribunal.
to the other provisions of this Act and the rules, the order of a Tribunal
finally disposing of an application or an appeal shall be final and shall not
be called in question in any court (including a High court) and such order
shall be executed in the same manner in which any final order of the nature
referred to in clause (a) of sub section (2) of Section 20 ( whether or not
such final order had actually been made) in respect of the grievance to which
the application relates would have been executed.
part to sub section (2) of Section 20 of the Act postulates that:
for the purposes of sub section (1) of Section 20, a person shall be deemed to have
availed of all the remedies availed to him under the relevant service rules as
to redressal of grievances, (a) if a final order has been made by Government or
other authority or officer or other person competent to pass such order under
such rules, rejecting any appeal preferred or representation made by such
person in connection with the grievance;
21 prescribes limitation in that behalf. Sub section (1) (a) of Section 21
A Tribunal shall not admit an application.
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 whit the grievance unless the
application is made within one year from the date on which such final order has
been kame." Thus it could be seen that the final order passed by the
Tribunal is executable under Section 27 of the Act within one year from the
date of its becoming final.
the final order was passed on March 13,1992
Consequently, the appellant was required to file the execution application
within one year from the said date unless the order of the Tribunal was
suspended by this Court in a special leave petition/appeal which is not the
case herein. Admittedly, the application came to be filed by the appellant on December 13, 1994 which is well beyond one year.
Under these circumstances, the Tribunal was right in its conclusion that the
application was barred by limitation.
counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal would have condoned the
delay in filing the application. It is not his case that he made an application
for condonation of delay and the Tribunal had rejected the application without
examining the grounds for the delay occasioned by him. Under these
circumstances, we need not go into further question of refusal to condone the
delay by the Tribunal.
appeal is accordingly dismissed, No costs.