Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • Section 21(1) of the Administrative Tribunal's Act
  • u/s 19 of the Administrative Tribunal's Act
  • clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 20
  • clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 20
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • Section 21(1) of the Administrative Tribunal's Act
  • u/s 19 of the Administrative Tribunal's Act
  • clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 20
  • clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 20

    Uday Prakash Pandey v. State Of M.P & Ors.

    Petitioner's representation was admittedly decided on 7/02/01. However, his application u/s 19 of the Administrative Tribunal's Act has been dismissed by reckoning the limitation from 23/03/97 when according to the petitioner, his first junior was promoted to the post of Asstt. Grade-II. Section 21(1) of the Administrative Tribunal's Act reads as follows:-

    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.

    Clause (a) of sub-section 1 permits the tribunal to admit an application where such application has been made within one year from the date on which final order has been made. The Tribunal has neither discussed the legal provision nor considered the dates on which the petitioner's representation is said to be finally decided. The order is thus vitiated by error of law apparent on the face of the record, accordingly the same is set aside.

    Matter is remanded back, O.A No. 1508/01 is restored to its file.

    Registry is directed to register it as a writ petition and the same shall be decided in accordance with law.

    With the aforesaid, petition stands disposed of.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Uday Prakash Pandey v. State Of M.P & Ors.
    (Mar 5, 2013)