- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Ramesh Chand Sharma v. Udham Singh Kamal And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
These two conjoined civil appeals challenge a common order dated 6-8-1996 rendered by the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 631 of 1994. The dispute centres on promotion to the selection post of Assistant Legislative Draftsman (Hindi), Class II (Gazetted). Under the relevant Recruitment and Promotion Rules, a candidate from the feeder cadre—Translator-cum-Legal Assistant or Proof-reader—must possess at least three years’ experience.
• The Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) met on 16-2-1991 and recommended Shri Ramesh Chand Sharma, who satisfied the three-year experience requirement, for promotion. Although Shri Udham Singh Kamal was senior (his prior Air Force service having been counted), he had only joined the feeder post on 5-10-1989 and therefore fell short of the requisite experience.
• The State Government accepted the DPC’s recommendation and, by notification dated 22-4-1991, promoted Ramesh Chand Sharma. Udham Singh Kamal’s representation against this decision was rejected on 2-7-1991.
• On 2-6-1994, i.e. after more than three years from the final rejection, Udham Singh Kamal filed OA No. 631/1994 before the Tribunal without any application seeking condonation of delay under Section 21(3) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (“the Act”). The Tribunal nevertheless allowed his OA on merits, prompting both the promoted officer and the State of Himachal Pradesh to file the present civil appeals.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether OA No. 631/1994 filed by Udham Singh Kamal was barred by limitation under Section 21(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
- If time-barred, whether the Tribunal possessed jurisdiction to entertain and decide the OA on merits in the absence of any application for condonation under Section 21(3) of the Act.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants’ Arguments (State of Himachal Pradesh & Ramesh Chand Sharma)
- The OA was filed beyond the three-year limitation prescribed in Section 21(1); hence it was not maintainable.
- No application for condonation of delay under Section 21(3) was ever moved; therefore the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to admit or adjudicate the matter.
- By ignoring the statutory bar, the Tribunal committed an error apparent on the face of the record.
Respondent’s Arguments (Udham Singh Kamal)
- Limitation should run from the alleged rejection of a subsequent representation (date unspecified), not from 2-7-1991.
- He believed that a clear vacancy would arise only after the lien of another officer (Shri Sita Ram Dholeta) ended; acting under this bona fide impression explained the delay.
- Alternatively, any delay should be condoned in the interests of justice.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Secretary to Govt. of India v. Shivram Mahadu Gaikwad, 1995 Supp (3) SCC 231 | Tribunal cannot entertain a time-barred application unless delay is condoned under Section 21(3) of the Administrative Tribunals Act. | Relied upon to reinforce that OA No. 631/1994, filed beyond the statutory limit and without a condonation application, was incompetent. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court meticulously examined the record and found that the OA was undisputedly lodged more than three years after rejection of the respondent’s representation (2-7-1991). Under Section 21(1) of the Act, such delay is fatal unless condoned under Section 21(3). The respondent never sought condonation before the Tribunal, nor laid any factual foundation for doing so. Consequently, explanations later advanced in the Supreme Court were impermissible new pleas.
Citing Shivram Mahadu Gaikwad, the Court reaffirmed that statutory limitation is mandatory: absent an application demonstrating “sufficient cause,” the Tribunal is powerless to admit or decide the matter. Because the Tribunal proceeded to examine merits without first addressing limitation, its order was held to be without jurisdiction and legally unsustainable.
Holding and Implications
Appeals Allowed; Tribunal’s order dated 6-8-1996 set aside; OA No. 631/1994 dismissed as barred by limitation.
Immediate Effect: Promotion of Ramesh Chand Sharma stands undisturbed; no relief accrues to Udham Singh Kamal. Each party bears its own costs.
Broader Implications: The decision reinforces the mandatory nature of Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, underscoring that administrative tribunals cannot sidestep statutory limitation without a formal condonation application. Although the judgment applies settled law, it serves as a cautionary precedent on strict compliance with procedural time bars.
S.P Kurdukar, J.— These two civil appeals can be conveniently disposed of by this common judgment since they are filed against the common order dated 6-8-1996 passed by the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”) in OA No. 631 of 1994. Civil Appeal No. 3119 of 1997 is filed by Ramesh Chand Sharma who has been promoted to the selection post as Assistant Legislative Draftsman (Hindi) Class II (Gazetted) on being recommended by the Departmental Promotion Committee. Civil Appeal No. 3120 of 1997 is filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh.
2. Feeder cadre to the selection post is Translator-cum-Legal Assistant. The relevant rules called “Recruitment and Promotion Rules” framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh prescribed the condition precedent of at least three years' experience in a feeder cadre i.e Translator-cum-Legislative Assistant or Proof-reader. The Government of Himachal Pradesh accepted the recommendation of DPC and promoted Ramesh Chand Sharma, the appellant as Assistant Legislative Draftsman (Hindi) Class II (Gazetted), although, he was junior to Respondent 1 Udham Singh Kamal in service under the following circumstances:
It is unnecessary to set out various contentions raised in these appeals since the main question raised before us relates to limitation provided under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The first respondent filed OA in the Tribunal after expiry of three years challenging the order of promotion of Ramesh Chand Sharma issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh on 22-4-1991. Suffice it to state that the first respondent Udham Singh Kamal was serving in the Air Force and after his retirement from the said service, he came to be appointed as Translator-cum-Legal Assistant in October 1989 and joined on 5-10-1989. It is a common premise that his past service in the Air Force was reckoned and accordingly he was placed senior to appellant Ramesh Chand Sharma. A vacancy arose in the promotional post of Assistant Legislative Draftsman (Hindi) Class II (Gazetted). This vacancy was reserved for Scheduled Tribes but as a candidate from that category was not available, it was declared a general vacancy. Admittedly, Udham Singh Kamal on the date of vacancy had not put in three years' experience in the feeder cadre of Translator-cum-Legislative Assistant or Proof-reader. This condition was prescribed under the rules framed by the Himachal Pradesh Government in exercise of powers under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. DPC which held its meeting on 16-2-1991 on a perusal of the service record of Ramesh Chand Sharma and Udham Singh Kamal found that the latter did not fulfil the condition of three years' experience in the feeder cadre and, therefore, vide its letter dated 22-4-1991 selected and recommended Ramesh Chand Sharma for being appointed as Assistant Legislative Draftsman (Hindi) Class II (Gazetted).
3. The first respondent Udham Singh Kamal on 1-5-1991 submitted his representation to the Deputy Secretary (SAD) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh which came to be rejected on 2-7-1991 by the Government on the ground that since he did not possess three years' experience, he was not eligible. In the meantime, vide notification dated 22-4-1991 issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh (Department of Personnel), Ramesh Chand Sharma was appointed as an Assistant Legislative Draftsman (Hindi) Class II (Gazetted) in the Himachal Pradesh Secretariat.
4. Respondent 1 Udham Singh Kamal on 2-6-1994 filed original application (OA) before the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. This OA was admittedly beyond the prescribed period of limitation of three years as provided under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. As regards the limitation in para 5, the first respondent has stated as under:
“The applicant further declares that the application is within the limitation prescribed in Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.”
This averment clearly indicates that the first respondent was all along asserting that he had filed OA within limitation but it was not so. The appellants in both these appeals have raised a contention that the OA was beyond three years and, therefore, the same was barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Despite this objection raised by the appellants, the first respondent did not file any application for condonation of delay. Section 21(3) of the Act gives power to the Tribunal to condone the delay if sufficient cause is shown.
5. Section 21 reads as under:
“21. Limitation.—(1) A Tribunal shall not admit an application,—
(a) in 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 with the grievance unless the application is made, within one year from the date on which such final order has been made;
(b) in a case where an appeal or representation such as is mentioned in clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 20 has been made and a period of six months had expired thereafter without such final order having been made, within one year from the date of expiry of the said period of six months.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), an application may be admitted after the period of one year specified in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) or, as the case may be, the period of six months specified in sub-section (2), if the applicant satisfies the Tribunal that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period.”
Relying upon the aforesaid provisions, it was contended on behalf of the appellants that the OA filed by the first respondent Udham Singh Kamal was barred by limitation. No application for condonation of delay was filed. In the absence of any application under sub-section (3) of Section 21 praying for condonation of delay, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to admit and dispose of the OA on merits. It was, therefore, contended that the Tribunal had totally overlooked the statutory provision contained in Section 21 of the Act and, therefore, the impugned order be set aside.
6. Learned counsel for the first respondent urged that after his representation was rejected by the Himachal Pradesh Government on 2-7-1991, he had made another representation pointing out the factual position and, therefore, the period of limitation needs to be counted not from 2-7-1991 but from the date of rejection of his second representation (no date mentioned). He also urged that the vacancy arose because one Shri Sita Ram Dholeta who was holding the post and working as Translator-cum-Legal Assistant went on deputation in March 1990 by keeping a lien on the said post. This respondent was under a bona fide belief that until the lien comes to an end, there may not be a clear vacancy and, therefore, as and when such vacancy arises, his claim would be considered. It is in these circumstances, he did not file OA at an early date. If there be any delay, the same may be condoned.
7. On a perusal of the materials on record and after hearing counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the explanation sought to be given before us cannot be entertained as no foundation thereof was laid before the Tribunal. It was open to the first respondent to make proper application under Section 21(3) of the Act for condonation of delay and having not done so, he cannot be permitted to take up such contention at this late stage. In our opinion, the OA filed before the Tribunal after the expiry of three years could not have been admitted and disposed of on merits in view of the statutory provision contained in Section 21(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The law in this behalf is now settled (see Secy. to Govt. of India v. Shivram Mahadu Gaikwad 1995 Supp (3) SCC 231, 1995 SCC L&S 1148, (1995) 30 ATC 635).
8. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order passed by the Administrative Tribunal on 6-8-1996 in OA No. 631 of 1994 is set aside and the said OA is dismissed on the ground of limitation. Civil Appeals Nos. 3119 and 3120 of 1997 are allowed. In the circumstances, parties are directed to bear their own costs.
Alert