Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 709

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPANKAR DATTA, RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.
The Chief Executive Officer & Others – Appellants
Versus
S. Lalitha & Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5528 of 2025 [Arising out of SLP(C) No. 6289 of 2019]
Decided On : 24-04-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Sahil Bhalaik, AOR Mr. Tushar Giri, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Anil Khanna, Adv. Mr. Ritik Arora, Adv. Mr. Shivam Mishra, Adv. Ms. Gulshan Jahan, Adv. Mr. Murshlin Ansari, Adv. Mr. Sewa Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Anuradha Mutatkar, AOR

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Writ Jurisdiction – Limitation – Unexplained delay or laches is considered one of factors which could assume significance in denying relief when discretionary writ remedy is invoked.
(2) Representation – Cause of action cannot be deferred by making a highly belated representation and awaiting its outcome – A representation though not provided in relevant rules governing service could yet be necessary and imperative when a legitimate service benefit is not conferred on aggrieved applicant-public servant by employer on his own either due to inaction or otherwise.

Headnote:
(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 – Sections 20 and 21 – Constitution of India – Article 226 – Writ Jurisdiction – Limitation – Unexplained delay or laches is considered one of factors which could assume significance in denying relief when discretionary writ remedy is invoked – In an appropriate case, a writ court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if applicant’s negligence or omission to assert his right combined with undue delay or laches and prejudice to other party warrants such refusal – However, although limitation laws do not apply to writ jurisdiction, in relation to service disputes triable under 1985 Act laws of limitation traceable in Section 21 read with Section 20 thereof do apply. (Paras 24 and 25)
(B) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 – Section 19 – Original Application – Limitation – Except in cases where final orders are passed on appeals/revisions/memorials/representations which are statutorily provided, limitation for the purpose of filing an original application under Section 19 of 1985 Act, has to be reckoned keeping in mind date of accrual of cause of action and proximity of date of representation, and period of one year for filing an original application has to be counted from date of expiry of six months from date of such a representation if no order were passed thereon – Cause of action cannot be deferred by making a highly belated representation and awaiting its outcome – A representation though not provided in relevant rules governing service could yet be necessary and imperative when a legitimate service benefit is not conferred on aggrieved applicant-public servant by employer on his own either due to inaction or otherwise – In such a case, representation inviting attention to what aggrieved applicant-public servant perceives is deprivation of a legitimate benefit has to be made expeditiously and before accrual of third-party rights – Such a representation could be made even after accrual of third-party rights, but within a reasonable time of same coming to notice of aggrieved applicant-public servant – What would constitute reasonable time would necessarily depend on facts of each particular case and decided accordingly. (Paras 34 and 35)
Facts of the case:
Challenge in this appeal is to a short order of High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru dated 8th March, 2018 [impugned order] dismissing a writ petition that appellants had presented before it. Appellants felt aggrieved by a judgment and order dated 1st August, 2017 of Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru whereby it allowed an original application of respondent.
Findings of Court:
Respondent has retired in 2018. Tribunal’s order has been implemented and she has received certain financial benefits. During winter years of her life, financial support will become essential to ensure that she can live a life of dignity and purpose, exercising her right to a fulfilling existence.
Result : Appeal disposed of.

JUDGMENT :

DIPANKAR DATTA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The challenge in this appeal is to a short order of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru¹[High Court] dated 8th March, 2018²[impugned order] dismissing a writ petition³[W.P. No. 9171 of 2018] that the appellants had presented before it. The appellants felt aggrieved by a judgment and order dated 1st August, 2017 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru⁴[Tribunal] whereby it allowed an original application⁵[O.A. No. 2 of 2017] of the respondent.

3. Undisputed facts, giving rise to this appeal, in a nutshell are these:

a. The respondent joined as TV News and Film Librarian (Library & Information Assistant) at Doordarshan Kendra, Bangalore on 11th March, 1985.

b. On 31st May, 2002, the appellant received benefit of financial upgradation under the Assured Career Progression⁶[ACP Scheme] Scheme, 1999 for the first time w.e.f. 9th August, 1999.

c. Since the ACP Scheme envisaged benefits of financial upgradation in the hierarchical scale after 12 and 24 years of service, the respondent became entitled to receive benefit of financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme for the second time w.e.f. 11th March, 2009.

d. The Modified Assured Career Progression⁷[MACP Scheme] Scheme, 2009 was brought into force superseding the ACP Scheme, w.e.f. 19th May, 2009.

e. The MACP Scheme envisaged placement in the immediate next higher grade pay on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of service. It also provided that upgradation granted under the ACP Scheme in the past to those grades which now carry the same Grade Pay due to the merger of pay scale/upgradation of pay recommended by the 6th Pay Commission shall be ignored for the purpose of granting upgradation under the MACP Scheme.

f. The basic difference between the ACP Scheme and the MACP Scheme appears to be that while under the former scheme the financial upgradation was to the pay scale of the next higher promotional post in the service, under the latter scheme, financial upgradation was with reference to the next higher grade pay in the scale of pay as notified upon implementation of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2018.

g. Since the respondent had not been promoted to a higher post till 1st September, 2008, she was granted the second benefit envisaged in the MACP Scheme [Pay Band 2 with Grade Pay of Rs.4,800/-] vide an order dated 10th August, 2010, w.e.f. 1st September, 2008.

h. In due course of time, w.e.f. 11th July, 2015, the respondent was granted the benefit of third financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme [Grade Pay of Rs.5,400/-] vide an order dated 18th November, 2015.

i. The respondent, indubitably, received the benefits of second and third financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme without raising any demur.

j. On 4th October, 2016, the respondent submitted a representation to the Director General, Doordarshan, 3rd appellant (5th respondent in the original application), to grant her benefit of second financial upgradation under ACP Scheme with Grade Pay of Rs.6,600/- w.e.f. 11th March, 2009 and the benefit of the third financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme with Grade Pay of Rs.7,600/-, w.e.f. 11th March, 2015.

k. Such representation was rejected on 5th November, 2016 by the Dy. Director (S.II).

l. Challenging rejection of her representation, the respondent approached the Tribunal which, as noted above, allowed her original application⁸[O.A.] vide the judgment and order dated 1st August, 2017⁹[Tribunal’s order], which later came to be affirmed by the High Court vide the impugned order.

4. The Tribunal proceeded to allow the O.A. of the respondent relying on a judgment and order of the High Court dated 5th June, 2017 in B. D. Kadam & ors. v. Union of India & ors., 2017 SCC OnLine Kar 4772.

5. The impugned order recorded its concurrence with the decision in B. D. Kadam (supra) and, thus, held that the Tribunal was not in error in upholding the respondent’s challenge to the order dated 5th November, 2016 rejecting he