The Indian Limitation Act, 1963 does not strictly apply to applications under Article 226 of the Constitution, and substantial questions of law of public importance warrant a certificate under Article 133 of the Constitution.

ORDER :- These ore seven applications for a certificate under Article 133 of the Constitution of India.

2. The applicants are aggrieved by the judgements and orders of this Court passed in Special Civil Applications Nos. 78 of 1973 and 90 of 1973 to 95 of 1973. By the said orders this Court quashed the orders of the petitioners dated September 20, 1966. All these applications involve common question of fact and law and are therefore disposed of by this common judgement.

3. The two questions relevant for this inquiry which were decided by the judgement of this Court dated April 25, 1975 (reported in 1976 Lab IC 266) are :- (1) whether the period fixed by the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 is to be strictly adhered to whilst deciding the question of laches in filing an application under Article 226 of the Constitution; and (2) Whether the principles followed in equating the posts for the purpose of absorption of employees of the erstwhile Portuguese regime under the Absorbed Employees Act have been correctly enunciated. It is contended by the applicants that both these questions involve substantial question of law of public importance and that it is necessary that the Supreme Court should adjudicate upon them.

4-5. The application initially framed was sought to be amended by the applicants. The amendment was opposed to by the respondents on the ground that the applications would be barred by limitation. I am unable to agree with the respondents. What the petitioner wants to introduce in the petition by the amendment, is a new ground and not a new cause of action. In the initial applications for a certificate under Article 133 of the Constitution the ground regarding the principle to be followed for equation of post and mentioned in paragraph 13 of the judgement of this Court which the petitioner wishes to challenge, was not mentioned. The application was granted and the amendment was allowed to be carried out.

6. In my opinion the first of the two grounds mentioned above does not involve a substantial question of law. From the rulings of the Supreme Court on that point it is well settled law that the periods of limitations prescribed by the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 do not strictly apply to applications under Article 226 of the Constitution. 7. However, the second question is a substantial question of law of public importance. Whether the equation of the posts existing during the erstwhile Portuguese regime to the posts existing after the liberation of this territory is to be done in the manner in which I have prescribed in paragraph 13 of my judgement

of April 25, 1975 or in the manner in which the applicants contend, it should be done, is not a question totally free from doubt. That question therefore is substantial. I have already stated in my said judgement why the question is of public importance. In my opinion this is a fit case for granting a certificate under Article 133 of the Constitution. I order accordingly.

8. It is urged before me by Dr. Lobo that if leave is granted to the applicants to file an appeal before the Supreme Court, the respondents who are poor, will be unable to defend the appeal for lack of funds. The respondents may apply to the Supreme Court to obtain relief in this regard. Dr. Lobe also brings to my notice that the petitioners have not paid the salaries of the respondents as per the scale laid down in the judgement of April 25, 1975. In the connection also the respondents may obtain relief from the Supreme Court.

Applications partly granted.