- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Administrator Of Union Territory Of Daman And Diu And Others v. R.D Valand .
Factual and Procedural Background
R.D. Valand, the respondent in the appeals, approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay seeking a direction to the Administration of the Union Territory of Daman and Diu to consider him for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer with effect from 12-08-1977. The Tribunal allowed his application and directed consideration for promotion from that date with all consequential benefits. The Administration appealed against the Tribunal’s judgment.
On facts, Valand was holding the post of Section Officer (Junior Engineer). He and three colleagues (including S.V. Joglekar) were reverted to the post of Draftsman, Grade II. Joglekar challenged his reversion before the Judicial Commissioner, Goa, who by judgment dated 12-10-1979 set aside Joglekar’s reversion with all consequential benefits. Although Valand did not litigate his own reversion, the Administration granted him the same relief on the ground that his case was similar, and promoted him to Junior Engineer with effect from 28-09-1972.
In 1985, Valand submitted a representation seeking consideration for promotion as Assistant Engineer with effect from August 1977 (when persons junior to him were promoted). The Administration rejected this representation by order dated 08-10-1986. Valand asserted that he made further representations which were also rejected. Ultimately, in March 1990, he filed the application before the Tribunal that led to the present appeals.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Tribunal was justified in granting relief on what the appellate court characterized as a stale claim, given the delay between the alleged accrual of cause of action and the filing of the application before the Tribunal.
- Whether the Tribunal erred in treating repeated representations as sufficient to overcome the limitation objection in these circumstances.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court held that the Tribunal was not justified in interfering with what it considered a stale claim. It reasoned that Valand was promoted to Junior Engineer in 1979 (with retrospective effect from 28-09-1972), and any cause of action relating to his service position and consequential claims arose at that time. Despite this, he did not pursue the matter until 1985, when he made a representation.
The court emphasized that the 1985 representation was rejected on 08-10-1986, and yet Valand did not approach any court for four more years, filing before the Tribunal only in March 1990. Given this chronology, the court concluded that the Tribunal was wrong to “put the clock back” by more than 15 years.
The court further found that the Tribunal committed a “patent error” by brushing aside limitation on the ground that Valand had been making representations from time to time, holding that such observations did not justify ignoring limitation in the facts and circumstances described.
Holding and Implications
ALLOWED; TRIBUNAL JUDGMENT SET ASIDE; RESPONDENT’S TRIBUNAL APPLICATION DISMISSED.
As a direct consequence, the relief granted by the Tribunal (consideration for promotion as Assistant Engineer from 12-08-1977 with consequential benefits) did not survive. However, since the Administration had already paid arrears to the respondent pursuant to the Tribunal’s judgment, the court directed that this amount shall not be recovered from him. No costs were awarded. The opinion does not indicate that any new precedent was set beyond deciding the parties’ dispute on the basis of delay and limitation considerations as discussed.
Order
1. R.D Valand, respondent in the appeals herein approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay with a prayer that the Administration of Union Territory of Daman and Diu be directed to consider him for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer with effect from 12-8-1977. The Tribunal allowed the application and directed the Administration to consider the respondent for promotion from the abovesaid date with all consequential benefits. This appeal by the Administration is against the judgment of the Tribunal.
2. We may briefly notice the facts. The respondent was holding the post of Section Officer (Junior Engineer). He, along with three other colleagues including one S.V Joglekar, was reverted to the post of Draftsman, Grade II. S.V Joglekar challenged his reversion before the Judicial Commissioner, Goa. The petition was allowed and the Commissioner by the judgment dated 12-10-1979 set aside the reversion of Joglekar with all consequential benefits. Although the respondent had not challenged his reversion before any court, since his case was similar to Joglekar's, the Administration gave him the same relief and promoted him to the post of Junior Engineer with effect from 28-9-1972.
3. R.D Valand submitted a representation sometime in the year 1985 requesting the Administration to consider him for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer with effect from August 1977 when some persons junior to him were promoted. The representation was rejected by the order dated 8-10-1986. According to the respondent he made several representations thereafter which were also rejected. Finally in March 1990 the respondent filed the application before the Tribunal out of which this appeal has arisen.
4. We are of the view that the Tribunal was not justified in interfering with the stale claim of the respondent. He was promoted to the post of Junior Engineer in the year 1979 with effect from 28-9-1972. A cause of action, if any, had arisen to him at that time. He slept over the matter till 1985 when he made representation to the Administration. The said representation was rejected on 8-10-1986. Thereafter for four years the respondent did not approach any court and finally he filed the present application before the Tribunal in March 1990. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was not justified in putting the clock back by more than 15 years. 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.
5. We allow the appeals, set aside the judgment of the Tribunal and dismiss the application of the respondent before the Tribunal. The respondent has been paid by the Administration the arrears which became due to him as a result of the Tribunal's judgment. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we direct that the said amount shall not be recovered from him. No costs.
Alert