Clarifying Limitation under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985:
Distinguishing Statutory from Non-Statutory Representations and the Non-Extendability of Cause of Action

Introduction

The Supreme Court’s decision in The Chief Executive Officer & Ors. v. S. Lalitha & Ors. (2025 INSC 565) examines the interplay between two career-progression schemes (ACP and MACP), the scope of “representation” as a remedy, and most significantly, the limitation provisions contained in Sections 20 and 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (ATA).

Although the respondent ultimately retained the monetary benefits granted by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and affirmed by the High Court, the Supreme Court has laid down a crucial precedent on limitation, holding that:

A belated, non-statutory representation cannot revive a stale or dead claim, nor can rejection of such representation furnish a fresh cause of action for filing an Original Application (OA) before the CAT.

Parties

• Appellants: The Chief Executive Officer, Director General Doordarshan and other functionaries of Prasar Bharati.
• Respondent: S. Lalitha, retired TV News & Film Librarian (Library & Information Assistant), Doordarshan Kendra, Bengaluru.

Key Issues

1. Whether an OA filed before the CAT was barred by limitation when the employee raised the grievance years after the cause of action had arisen, relying on rejection of a late, non-statutory representation.
2. Whether benefits granted under ACP rather than MACP (or vice-versa) were correctly applied to the respondent.
3. Whether, despite finding the OA to be time-barred, the Court should order recovery of benefits already paid.

Summary of the Judgment

1. The Supreme Court ruled that the OA ought to have been dismissed as time-barred because:

• The respondent’s representation dated 4 October 2016 was non-statutory and enormously belated; it could not postpone limitation or create a new cause of action (paras 32–37).
• Sections 20 (2) and 21 ATA govern only those remedies expressly provided under relevant service rules; self-created “representations” do not extend time (para 34).

2. Nonetheless, invoking its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court declined to order recovery of benefits already disbursed since the respondent, a woman pensioner, had retired in 2018 and had relied on the subsisting orders (para 38).

3. The appeal was formally “disposed of without interfering with the impugned order,” but the legal principle on limitation was authoritatively pronounced (para 39).

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1. C. Jacob v. Director Of Geology & Mining (2008) 10 SCC 115 – First Supreme Court decision condemning the “representation and relief” syndrome; emphasised that stale claims cannot be revived by belated representations.
2. Union of India v. M. K. Sarkar (2010) 2 SCC 59 – Reiterated that rejection of an out-of-time representation does not generate a fresh cause of action.
3. State Of Uttaranchal v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari (2013) 12 SCC 179 and Union of India v. Chaman Rana (2018) 5 SCC 798 – Held that promotion-related grievances must be raised without undue delay; a later pronouncement of law cannot breathe life into dead claims.
4. Union of India v. N. M. Raut (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3873) – Distinguished by the Court; there, employees received multiple upgradations contrary to the MACP’s intention, whereas Lalitha’s grievance arose from delayed grant under an older scheme.
5. Union of India v. Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 648 – Discussed for the concept of “continuing wrong,” which, the Court clarified, did not apply here.

The Court synthesized these precedents to declare a refined test: only statutory remedies reset the limitation clock; non-statutory representations cannot.

Legal Reasoning

1. Textual Interpretation of Sections 20 and 21 ATA
   • “Remedies” in Section 20(1) means those “available under the relevant service rules.”
   • If the rules do not provide a representation route, an employee may go straight to the CAT; if they do, that route must be exhausted – but only within the statutory timelines (para 34).
2. Non-Statutory Representation Cannot Extend Time
   • The respondent waited from 2009/2010 (when her upgradation occurred) to 2016 to complain.
   • Her October 2016 representation was self-initiated; its rejection on 5 November 2016 did not give her a fresh 1-year window under Section 21 (paras 33, 35).
3. Distinguishing Continuous Wrong
   • Salary fixation mistakes may constitute a “continuing wrong”; but the switch between ACP and MACP, once effected, crystallised in 2010 and was not ongoing (para 35).
   
4. Equitable Relief Under Article 142
   • Despite holding the OA time-barred, the Court acknowledged the respondent’s retirement, her dependence, and the state’s constitutional power to aid women and the elderly (Art. 15(3) & 41).
   • Exercising “complete justice” jurisdiction, it protected her from recovery (para 38).

Impact of the Judgment

• CAT Adjudication: Tribunals must now conduct a preliminary limitation inquiry whenever an OA is based on a “rejected representation.” The date of the underlying cause of action—not representation rejection—will control.
• Service Jurisprudence: Employees can no longer safely rely on repeated or late representations to avoid statutory limitation. Government departments gain certainty about closure of old liabilities.
• Litigation Strategy: Legal practitioners must distinguish statutory and non-statutory representations when advising clients; stale claims need fresh rationale (e.g., continuing wrong) or will be shut out.
• Humanitarian Discretion: The Court’s refusal to order recovery signals that, even when employers succeed on legal principle, equitable considerations—age, gender, dependency—may bar restitution.
• Pending Matters: The Court clarified that mere issuance of notice in SLP (C) D No. 45401/2023 (arising from B.D. Kadam) does not dilute the limitation principle. Lower courts should not treat “notice” as a precedent.

Complex Concepts Simplified

ACP Scheme (1999)

“Assured Career Progression.” Gave two financial upgradations after 12 and 24 years of service, at the pay scale of the next promotional post.

MACP Scheme (2009)

“Modified ACP.” Superseded ACP; gives three upgradations after 10, 20, 30 years but only to the next higher Grade Pay (not necessarily promotional post).

Non-Functional Upgradation (NFU)

A separate benefit given to many cadres where promotional posts are unavailable; triggers salary hike without change in duties.

Representation (Statutory vs. Non-Statutory)

• Statutory: Specifically provided for in service rules (e.g., appeal, revision).
• Non-statutory: A letter/petition made out of perceived grievance, without any rule requiring or authorising it.

Continuous Wrong

A wrong whose effects perpetually occur (e.g., monthly under-payment of salary). Limitation runs anew with each wrongful act.

Article 142

Empowers Supreme Court to pass orders necessary for “complete justice,” even beyond statutory constraints.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in The Chief Executive Officer v. S. Lalitha offers a definitive clarification to tribunals, public employees, and government departments: a stale claim cannot be resurrected by an eleventh-hour, non-statutory representation.

By carefully parsing Sections 20 and 21 ATA, the Court has erected a sharper limitation framework, likely to stem a tide of belated service litigations. Yet, by invoking Article 142 to shield an elderly woman employee from repayment, the Court balanced strict legal doctrine with compassionate equity, reminding stakeholders that justice is both principled and humane.