Delay in filing challenged applications cannot be excused by subsequent representations; adherence to statutory limitation periods is crucial.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.

2. The petitioner has assailed rejection of his claim for compassionate appointment by an order dated 01.12.2016 passed by the Commission of Textile & Sericulture, West Bengal by filing an Original Application eight years thereafter that is in the year 2024. The Tribunal has rejected the Original Application bearing O.A. 112 of 2024 by its order dated 04.04.2024. A miscellaneous application filed by the petitioner for bringing on record additional documents and additional prayer has also been rejected.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal has taken a hyper technical approach. Without considering the petitioner’s prayer on merit the Original Application has been rejected only on the grounds of being barred by limitation.

4. He submits that after rejection of the petitioner’s claim on 01.12.2016 the petitioner made subsequent representations which were duly forwarded by the authorities and, therefore, counting of limitation from the date of rejection dated 01.12.2016 has resulted in dismissal of the Original Application which is unsustainable in as much as the Tribunal has failed to consider the subsequent representations made by the petitioner.

5. He has placed reliance on an unreported decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Deb Kumar Mondal –Vs.- The State of West Bengal & Ors. passed in W.P.S.T. 67 of 2019 on 22.07.2019. Referring to the judgment he submits that since the petitioner had made statement regards delay with a view to its condonation in paragraph 3 of the Original Application itself, the same was required to be considered, and limitation condoned by the Tribunal.

6. We have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment was rejected on 01.12.2016. In this connection, the Court is required to consider two provisions under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 namely Section 20 and Section 21 . Section 20 (1), (2)(a) contemplates that the Tribunal shall not ordinarily admit an application unless it is satisfied that the applicant has availed remedies available to him under the relevant Service Rules as to redressal of his grievances. The provision contains further stipulation that a person would be deemed to have availed all remedies under the relevant Service Rules for redressal of his grievance if a final order has been made by the authority competent to pass such order by way of rejection of a representation made by such person in connection with the grievance. In the present case the grievance of the petitioner was rejected on 01.12.2016. Therefore, the requirement of Section 20 of the Act appears to be complied with in the present case.

7. After complying with the requirement of Section 20 of the Act there is another bar to admit an application by the Tribunal contained in Section 21 of the Act. Since in the present case the representation has been disposed of by the competent authority to pass orders thereupon the provisions contained in Section 21 (1)(a)

is relevant for the present case:

“21. Limitation.-(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 o