G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral)

By way of the present petition, a challenge has been laid to the order dated 09.04.2019, passed by the HP State Administrative Tribunal, whereby the Original Application was allowed and the period of maternity from 01.07.1996 to 31.12.1996 and illness from 01.01.1998 to 31.07.1998, was deemed to be held in continuous service and directions were given to consider the applicant for conferment of work charge status on completion of 10 year service with all consequential benefits and actual financial benefits were restricted for three years prior to the filing of the Original Application.

It is to be noticed that the learned Tribunal has adopted a methodology, which cut-short the right, as such, of the appellant-State to even file a reply, by dispensing with the same and taking up Original Application for disposal. The relevant paragraphs of the Tribunal order read as under:-

“Heard Notice.

2. Mr. Narender Singh Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

3. Filing of replies is dispensed with. With the consent of the parties the original application is taken up for disposal at this stage.”

We are not in a position to sustain such an action of the Tribunal, as the right to file response by the State and to raise its defence, cannot be curtailed in a manner in which the Tribunal has done, while allowing the OA, which was pending before it and in which notice had been just issued on the said date. It is not disputed that the claim in the OA was regarding the break in service from 01.07.1996 to 31.12.1996 and the second break in service was from 01.01.1998 to 31.07.1998. The OA was dated 24.02.2019, and as per para 5 of the OA, the applicant had declared that the application was within limitation, prescribed under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985.

Perusal of the said provision and Section 20 would go on to show that the grievance has to be raised within a period of one year from the date on which the final order has been made. Sub-Section 2 provides that a grievance in respect of which an application is made had arisen by any reason of any order made at any time during the period of three years immediately preceding the date on which the jurisdiction, powers and authorities of the Tribunal become exercisable under this Act in the matter to which such order relates. Sub-Clause 3 provides that the application may be admitted after a period of one year specified in Clause-a or Clause-b of sub-Section 1, or within a period of six months in case of Sub-Section 2, if the applicant satisfies the Tribunal that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period.

Section 21 of the said Act starts with the bar to the Tribunal that it should not admit an application. In such circumstances, the petition, which was filed in the year 2019 was on the face of it barred and by taking away the right, as such, to file the reply, the State’s interest has been adversely affected. The operation and execution of the order was stayed at the outset by the Coordinate Bench on 10.12.2019.

In S.S. Rathore vs. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1990 SC 10 a seven Judge Bench has considered the ambit and scope of Section 21 of the Act which prescribed a period of one year for making of the application and power of condonation of delay within a total period of six months and that the cause of action would be taken to arise when the order of the higher authority where a statutory remedy is provided entertaining the appeal or representation is made and that repeated representation not provided by law would not govern by the principle and would not be taken into consideration in the matter of fixing limitation. In Secretary to Government India vs. Shivram Mahadu Gaikwad 1995 Supp (3) SCC 231 the order of discharge dated 07.10.1986 was held to be barred by limitation having been filed in 1990 before the Tribunal. Similarly,