SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(SC) 1370

1996(7) Supreme 512
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
State of Karnataka & Ors. -Appellants
versus
S.M. Kotrayya & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 12037-48 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 15917-28
of 1993)
Decided on 2.9.1996
Case referred :
1. S.S. Rathore v. State of M.P., (1989) 4 SCC 582 : (Distinguished).
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : M. Veerappa, Advocate.
For the Respondents : D.V. Sehgal, Sr. Advocate (A.C.).

IMPORTANT POINT
Central Administrative Tribunal has the power to condone delay in filing application.

Headnote:Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985-Section 21-Limitation for redressal of the grievances-If application is filed beyond limitation, then satisfactory explanation for delay caused till date of filing of application must be given-Respondents availed Leave Travel Concession during 1981-82-When it transpired that they had not utilised the benefit, recoveries were made in 1984- 86-Application filed in August 1989 before Tribunal-Explanation that respondent came to know of relief granted by Tribunal in other cases in August 1989 cannot be a proper explanation-Tribunal was unjustified in condoning delay. (Paras 5 & 7)

       

ORDER

Delay condoned.

Leave granted.

2. At the outset, we express our deep appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by Shri D.V. Sehgal, learned senior counsel who appeared as amicus curiae at our request since the respondents did not appear either in person or through counsel.

3. These appeals by special leave arise from the common order of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, dated August 14, 1989 made in Application Nos. 4134-45/89. The admitted facts are that the respondents, while working as teachers in the Department of Education, availed of Leave Travel Concession during the year 1981-82. But later it transpired that they had never utilised the benefit of LTC but drew the amount and used it. Consequently, recovery came to be made in the year 1984-86. Some of the persons filed applications in the Tribunal questioning the power of the Government to recover the same. It would appear that thereafter in August 1989 the Tribunal allowed similar claims and had held that the appellant-Government could not recover the same from the respondents. On coming to know of it, the respondents filed applications in August 1989 before the Tribunal with an application to condone the delay. The Tribunal has condoned the delay by the impugned order. Thus these appeals by special leave.

4. Shri Veerappa, learned counsel for the appellant, placing reliance on the judgment of a Constitution Bench of this Court in S.S. Rathore v. State of Madhya Pradesh1 contended that the Tribunal has no power to condone the delay if the respondents had not given any explanation why they could not file the application within six months and if they came to be filed beyond six months covered by sub-section (2) of Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short, the "Act"), the Tribunal has no power to condone the delay. We found no force in the contention.

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.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where

(a) the grievance in respect of which an application is made had arisen by reason of any order made at any time during the period of three years immediately preceding the date on which the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunal becomes exercisable under this Act in respect of the matter to which such order relates; and

(b) no proceedings for the redressal of such grievance had been commenced before the said date before any High Court, the application shall be entertained by the Tribunal if it is made within the period referred to in clause (a), or, as the case may be, clause (b), of sub-section (1) or within a period of six months from the said date, whichever period expires later.

(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 they had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period."                   [emphasis supplied]

5. A reading of the said section would indicate that sub-section (1) of Section 21 provides for limitation for redressal of the grievances in clauses (a) and (b) and specifies the period of one year. Sub-section (2) amplifies the limitation of one year in respect of grievances cov





Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top