The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering all representations made by the petitioner and the effect of any orders granting liberty to file fresh applications when calculating the limitation period for filing an application.

JUDGMENT :

Jitendra Jain, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 11th March 2022 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai (for short “the Tribunal”), whereby the Original Application No.761 of 2020 filed by the Petitioner is dismissed on the point of limitation.

3. Brief facts leading to the present petition are as under:-

(i) On 18th March 1983, the Petitioner came to be appointed as a Technical Assistant in the Water Resources Department of the State of Maharashtra.

(ii) On 16th January 2015, the Petitioner was promoted to the post of Junior Engineer by the Respondents. However, the Petitioner was not satisfied with the said promotion and vide various representations, starting from 7th August 2015 upto 2nd November 2018, sought promotion w.e.f. 1st February 1992. However, since there was no response to the said representations, the Petitioner on 18th December 2018 filed an Original Application (OA) with the Tribunal which was numbered as OA No.27 of 2019.

(iii) On 28th November 2019, the Petitioner was permitted by the Tribunal to withdraw OA No.27 of 2019 with liberty. Pursuant to the said liberty, 2nd OA No.761 of 2020 was filed by the Petitioner on 15th December 2020.

(iv) On 11th March 2022, the Tribunal dismissed the said OA No.761 of 2020 by placing reliance on Section 20 read with Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the said OA is barred by limitation by considering the first representation made on 7th August 2015 as the starting day for calculating the limitation under Section 20 read with Section 21 of the said Act. It is on this backdrop that the present petition is filed before this Court challenging the impugned order dated 11th March 2022.

4. The Petitioner submits that the Tribunal erred in calculating limitation period from 7th August 2015 being the first representation. The Petitioner submits that he had made various representations and the last of the representation was made on 2nd November 2018. The Petitioner submits that the 1st OA was filed on 18th December 2018, which was within the period specified in Section 21(1)(b) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 from the date of last representation. The Petitioner submits that the said application was allowed to be withdrawn with liberty on 28th November 2019 and, thereafter, the 2nd Original Application was filed on 15th December 2020. In the meanwhile, there was a pandemic from March 2020 and the limitation period was suspended by the Supreme Court. The Petitioner submits that the Tribunal has not considered the last of the representation made on 2nd November 2018 for calculating the limitation period and has also not considered the effect of order dated 20th November 2019, whereby a liberty was given to the Petitioner. The Petitioner submits that if all these factors are considered then the OA filed on 15th December 2020 was well within the time and, therefore, the impugned order dated 11th March 2022 ought to be quashed.

5. Per contra, the Respondents supported the order of the Tribunal by submitting that the 2nd OA was time barred, if the limitation is counted from 7th August 2015 being the first of the representation made by the Petitioner. The Respondents have therefore prayed for dismissal of the present petition.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the Respondents and with their assistance have perused the pleadings of the present petition.

7. It is relevant to reproduce Sections 20 and 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, which reads thus:-

“20. Applications not to be admitted unless other remedies exhausted. -

(1) A Tribunal shall not ordinarily admit an application unless it is satisfied that the applicant had availed of all the remedies available to him under the relevant service rules as to