Limitation must be addressed before merits in administrative tribunal applications; if time-barred, the tribunal lacks jurisdiction to decide on merits.

Order :

1. This petition is filed assailing the order dated 14.09.2020 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur (for short ‘the tribunal’) dismissing the Original Application (O.A.) filed by the petitioner.

2. The brief facts are that on 09.08.1975 the petitioner was appointed as Goods Guard under Sports quota. The petitioner was given first stagnation increment on 01.07.1983. On 13.03.1992 petitioner was promoted to the post of Passenger Guard and thereafter on 22.06.1993 to the post of Guard Mail/Express. The petitioner retired on 31.01.2009. After three years of retirement, the representations given by the petitioner in the year 2012 claiming three promotions and benefit of Modified Assured Career Progression (for short ‘M.A.C.P.) and consequent benefits thereto were rejected on 10.09.2012. Aggrieved of the communication dated 10.09.2012 the petitioner filed O.A. No.836/2012 for grant of financial upgradation benefits. The OA was withdrawn with liberty to file a detailed representation. The respondents were directed to decide the representation within three months. On rejection of the representation vide order dated 22.01.2013, the O.A. in issue was filed. The tribunal dismissed the O.A. being barred by limitation and further proceeded to deal with merits of the case.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the tribunal erred in dismissing the O.A. on limitation. The tribunal has not appreciated the rules and regulations in correct prospective.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the tribunal has dismissed the O.A. on the ground of limitation as well as on merits. The contention is that the relief accruing in the year 1985 was first time sought in the year 2012.

5. The tribunal held that the claim made in O.A. is time barred. The tribunal considered that the applicant retired in January 2009 and the O.A. was filed in the year 2012, which was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh detailed representation and the petitioner failed to demonstrate that prior to 2012, the claim was ever raised.

6. The case of the petitioner was that the claim is within limitation and hence, no application was filed for condonation of delay. As per the tribunal, withdrawal of the O.A. in the year 2012 with liberty to file a fresh detailed representation had not created a fresh cause of action. In absence of an application for condonation of delay there was no ground pleaded before the tribunal for condoning the delay. Having dismissed the O.A. on limitation, the tribunal proceeded to deal with the merits of the controversy which in our considered opinion is not impermissible.

7. The issue of jurisdiction and limitation are the threshold for availing remedy before the forum. It is on assumption of the jurisdiction and filing of the petition within prescribed limitation the O.A. can be entertained and thereafter the matter can be considered on merits.

8. The dismissal of the OA being time barred ousted the claim of the petitioner at the first instance. In other words, the tribunal having concluded that the OA cannot be entertained being barred by limitation could not have assumed jurisdiction to decide the OA on merits.

9. The Supreme Court in the case of Tin Plate Co. Of India Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in (1998) 8 SCC 272 held that the High Court having dismissed the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy should have exercised refrain from expressing the opinion on merits. The relevant part of the judgment is:-

“If the writ petition under Article 226 is to be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy, the High Court is not required to express any opinion on merits of the case which is to be pursued before an alternative forum. It is true that in the present case the appellant’s counsel in his effort to get over the objection of existence of an alternative remedy, addressed the Court on merits of the case and thereby invited the observations on merits of the case by the High Court but in