##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

208 CWP-32850-2018 (O&M)

Decided on : 05.02.2026

GAJE SINGH

...Petitioner

Versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. . . . Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI

PRESENT: Mr. Rajesh Khandelwal, Advocate for

Mr. Ankur Sidhar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Paul S. Saini, Senior Panel Counsel

for respondents No. 1 to 3.

****

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral)

1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the order dated

24.08.2018 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No. 4- Central

Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh (herein after referred to as ‘the

Tribunal’) by which, the claim being raised by the petitioner with regard to

the grant of benefit of regular pay scale when he worked on temporary basis,

has been denied to him on the ground that the petitioner cannot raise the said

claim before the Court after a period of three decades from the time when

actual cause of action accrued to him and that their claims are vague.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the benefit is being

claimed by the petitioner on the ground that the certain other similarly

situated person approached the Tribunal in the year 2001, claiming the said

benefit of regular pay scale by filing of OA No. 788/HR/2001 titled as

Pardeep Jain and others versus Union of India and others (Annexure A-1

colly) which benefit was allowed in favour of them on 31.10.2003. Hence,

the petitioner is also entitled to the said benefit, even if, the petitioner never

RIYA

2026.02.10 14:06

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

2

CWP-32850-2018 (O&M)

claimed the same even after the order passed in OA No. 788/HR/2001 -

Pardeep Jain’s case (supra) , which had attained finality.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that the denial

of the benefit to the petitioner on the ground that there was a delay in

approaching the authorities, is incorrect on the part of the Tribunal especially

when such benefit had already been granted to the other similarly situated

employees in Pardeep Jain’s case (supra)

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone

through the case file with their able assistance.

5. It may be noticed that there are certain provisions under the

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (herein after referred to as ‘Act, 1985’)

which are to be kept in mind for deciding the issue in hand, especially

Section 21 of the Act, 1985 which deals with the limitation for raising the

grievances. As per the Section 21 of the Act, 1985, the remedy has to be

filed within the period of one year from the date when the cause of action

has actually accrues, wherein any written order is causing prejudice and in

case, a direction is being sought for, for the removal of the grievance, the

same has to be interpreted to be the period of one year six months as six

months time is given to raise such kind of grievances by way of a

representation.

6. In the present case, the claim for the regular pay scale for a

period starting from the year 1982 is being claimed by the petitioner in the

year 2014. The First question which arises is whether, the said claim of the

petitioner can be entertained after a period of 32 years or not.

7. In this regard the definition of Section 21 of the Act, 1985 is as

under:_

RIYA

2026.02.10 14:06

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

3

CWP-32850-2018 (O&M)

“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 on which such final order

has been made;

(b) in a case where an appeal or representation such as is

mentioned in clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 20 has been

made and a period of six months had expired thereafter without

such final order having been made, within one year from the

date of expiry of the said period of si