The final order for computing limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is the rejection of the representation made by the aggrieved employee.

N.N. Mathur, J.-By way of instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner

has challenged the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench dated 20.09.2000, whereby the Original Application No. 318/1998 has been dismissed as barred by limitation.

2. The case of the petitioner is that, he was appointed as a casual employee with effect from 21.08.1966. Thereafter, he was shifted as Cleaner with effect from 30.12.1968. He was declared

surplus with effect from 07.01.1970. He qualified B-1 medical examination for the post of Engine Lighter. He was posted as cleaner with effect from 21.01.1972. However, he was placed in the panel of Engine Lighter as per the order dated 01.03.1973. By order dated 12.05.1975, he was appointed as Loco Engine Lighter. Thus, the seniority was determined considering him Engine Lighter. In the seniority list dated 12.05.1975/04.06.1975, his name appeared at S. No. 341 showing his initial appointment as on 17.04.1970. In the year 1980, one more seniority list of cleaners was published wherein the petitioner was assigned seniority at S. No. 512. The seniority position of the petitioner remained intact in the seniority list published in the year 1983 and 1986. In the year 1987, petitioner sought modification of the seniority with reference to his promotion. However, the representation was rejected vide communication dated 23.03.1987 on the ground that he was given promotion as per the seniority lists of the year 1980, 1983 and 1986. However, the respondents changed the petitioner’s seniority from S. No. 237 to 298-A i.e., above Shri Suresh Chandra and below Shri Shanti Prakash vide communication dated 13.02.1992. Thus, the petitioner made a representation stating inter alia that his seniority which had attained finality twelve years back, could not have been challenged. Petitioner’s representation was rejected vide Annexure R/1 dated 01.04.1992. However, he continued to make repeated representations. The last representation was rejected vide order dated 04.06.1998.

3. Petitioner filed the Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, hereinafter referred to as “the Act”, for quashing the order dated 04.06.1998.

4. The respondents raised a preliminary objection of the Original Application being barred by limitation. The Tribunal found that the representation was rejected vide order 01.04.1992 Annexure R/1, as such, the Original Application was barred by limitation, which was presented in November, 1998.

5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. It appears that vide Annexure R/1 dated 01.04.1992, petitioner was asked to produce certain documents within a period of one week. For ready reference, Annexure R/1 produced in the instant writ petition as Annexure 7 is reproduced as follows:

e.My dk;kZ

y;

m0 js



0 tks/kiqj

la



[;k% 729bZ@bZ0Mh0@ujflag@2554@72 fnukad 01041992 Jh ujflag 2554 Mhty lgk;d }kjk&yksdks Qksjesu@tks/kiqjA fo"k;%&Dyhuj ojh;rk fu/kkZj.k gsrqA

“mRrj jsyos

lUnHkZ%&vkidk vH;kosnu fnukad 10031992qwlkj bl vkidh fu; fDr batu ykbVj&Qkn Mªkij o V;~c Dyhuj ds lu~ 1973 ds iSuy dh eSfjV 16 ds vuqy; ds i= fnukad 12051975 ds vuqqdk;kZlkj fu;fer batu ykbVj ds in ij gqbZ FkhA vr% vkidh fu; fDr frfFk uk lgh izrhr ugha gksq17041970 gksrk gS vxj fQj Hkh vkidh fu;fDr 17041970 gksus ls lcafa/kr dksbZ dkxtkr gksa rks og bl dk;kZa ,d lIrkg esr djsa vU;Fkk bl dk;kZy; esa izLrqy; ds i= fnukad 13021992 }kjk vkidh fu; qfDr frfFk12051975 ekudj tks ojh;rk dk iqu% fu/kkZj.k fd;k x;k gS] og lgh le>k tk;xs!k

g0

1@4

-rs e.My dkfeZd vf /kdkjh

m0 js0 tks/kiqj

Qkj flxuspj Iyht g- Mhyj 1@4@1992 g0 1@4 ,,ihvks@ihlh”

6. A reading of the aforesaid communication dated 01.04.1992 discloses that petitioner was asked to produce evidence to show that if he was appointed on 17.04.1970, he may produce the same within one week, otherwise his appointment shall be treated as per the communication dated 13.02.1992.