The court emphasized the importance of timely resolution of disputes and the need to discourage the filing of old, stale claims, even if technically within the limitation period.

JUDGMENT :

V.K. Gupta, C.J.

1. The judgment of the H.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 1539/1993 passed on 25th February, 2003 is under challenge in this petition filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Tribunal has dismissed the Original Application filed by the Petitioner only on the ground of delay, limitation and lack of jurisdiction.

2. The Petitioner had been appointed as Demonstrator in Zoology in S.D.B. College, Shimla on 30th November, 1971. At the time of his appointment, S.D.B. College, Shimla was a pure private institution. On 1st September, 1977, the Petitioner was promoted to the higher post of Lecturer in Zoology and this promotion was to take effect from 13th August, 1977. The promotion order dated 1st September, 1977 was issued by the Principal of S.D.B. College, as even on 1st September, 1977 S.D.B. College was still a pure private institution. It was only on 15th September, 1977 that the S.D.B. College was taken over by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, as a consequence of which the services of the Petitioner alongwith Ors. were also taken over by the State Government. However, for ready reference we reproduce hereinbelow the text of the promotion order dated 1st September, 1977. It was thus :

As per decision of the Managing Committee, you are hereby promoted from Demonstrator in Zoology to Lecturer in Zoology in the Lecturers grade 300-600 with effect from 13.8.1977. Your basic salary has been fixed at Rs. 325 in the lecturers grade from 13.8.1977.

3. Without going into any unnecessary fact, apparently on 18th June, 1990 the Petitioner made a representation to the Government that he was entitled to be promoted as a Lecturer with effect from 1973, instead of 1977 and that since he had been taking some classes and teaching the students even while working as a Demonstrator between 1973 and 1977, apart from his right of being promoted as a Lecturer from 1973, instead of 1977, he was also entitled to receive remuneration for the period 1973-1977 because he had been teaching the students during this period. Vide communication dated 11th June, 1993, the State Government rejected the aforesaid representation of the Petitioner. It is this rejection order dated 11th June, 1993 which was challenged by the Petitioner before the Tribunal by filing Original Application No. 1539/1993 and as noticed at the outset, the Tribunal holding that the Original Application was time barred, dismissed the same vide judgment dated 25th February, 2003 under challenge in this petition.

4. Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 clearly lays down that a Tribunal shall not admit an Original Application (in a case where the Original Application challenges a final order), if the Application is filed beyond the limitation period of one year from the date of passing of the final order. Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 21, which is relevant for our purpose, reads thus :

(1) A Tribunal shall not admit an application:

(a) in a case where a final order such as is mentioned in clause (a) of Sub-section (2) of Section 20 has been made in connection with the grievance unless the application is made, within one year from the date on which such final order has been made.

5. Mr. Rajiv Sharma, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has submitted that the Tribunal erred in treating the Petitioners Original Application as time barred and thus wrongly dismissed the same because the Petitioner had filed the Original Application in the month of August, 1993 against the impugned order passed on 11th June, 1993 and since the Original Application was filed within one year from the date of passing of impugned order, it could not be treated as time barred. He also submitted that Anr. order being Order No. Cha (1) 6/63-Edu. A dated 26th May, 1993 was also challenged before the tribunal in the same Original Application and since this was also done within one year, the Tribunal very wrongly and