Dev Gupta Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & ANR  INSC 708 (3 September 1997)
VENKATASWAMI, V. N. KHARE
Mr. Justice K. Venkataswami Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.N. Khare Hardev Singh, Sr.
Adv., Ms. Madhu Moolchandani, Adv. with him for the appellant Rajiv Nanda and
T. Sridharan, Advs. for the Respondents The following Order of the Court was
O R D
E R K. Venkataswami, j.
appellant approached the central Administrative Tribunal for the relief that he
is entitled to the pay-scale of Lecturer in Commercial arts though he was
appointed to the post of 'Studio Artist'. In addition to that he claimed the
difference in the salary from the year 1971. He approached the Tribunal for
this relief in May. 1989. The Tribunal accepted the claim of the appellant that
he should be paid the salary of Lecturer in Commercial Arts though he was
appointed to the post of 'Studio Artist' in View of the fact that he was
performing the duties of Lecturer in Commercial Arts. However, the Tribunal
granted the relief of difference in backwages from May, 1988 only on the ground
that under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act the period of one
year is prescribed for redressal of grievances. Against the decision of the
Tribunal that the appellant is entitled to be paid the salary of Lecturer in
Commercial Arts though he was appointed as 'Studio Artist' the respondents have
not filed any appeal. The appellant has preferred this appeal claiming the
difference in backwages from the date of his posting as Lecturer in Commercial
counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that before approaching the
Tribunal the appellant was making number of representations to the appropriate
authorities claiming the relief and that was the reason for not approaching the
Tribunal earlier than May, 1989. We do not think that such an excuse can be
advanced to claim the difference in backwages from the year 1971. In
Administrator 1995 Supp(4) SCC 593 this court while setting aside an order of Central
Administrative Tribunal has observed that the Tribunal was not justified in
putting the clock back by more than 15 years and the Tribunal fell into patent
error in brushing aside the question of limitation by observing that the
respondent has been making representations from time to time and as such the
limitation would not come in his way.
light of the above decision, we cannot entertain the arguments of the learned
counsel for the appellant that the difference in backwages should be paid right
from the year 1971. At the same time we do not think that the Tribunal was
right in invoking section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act for
restricting the difference by backwages by one year.
facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the appellant is entitled to
get the difference in backwages from May, 1986. The appeal is disposed of
accordingly with no order as to costs.