HUKAM RAJ KHINVSARA versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] 2 S.C.R. 1157 · Decided: 17-03-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

HUKAM RAJ KHINVSARA 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
MARCH 17, 1997 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.j 
B 
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 : 
Ss. 27 read with ss. 20 (2) and 21(1}-Applicatio11 for Execution of 
Order passed by Tribu11al-'Limitation-By order dated 13.3.1992 Tribunal C 
set aside dismissal of the employee, reinstated him into service and directed 
that he would be e11titled to all consequential benefits-On rejection of 
employee's representation for conseque11tial be11efits, he filed contempt peti-
tion which was dismissed-011 13.12.1994 employee filed applicatio11 u/s. 27 
for executio11 of Tribunal's order dated 13.3.1992-Tribunal dismissed the 
applicatio11 as bamd by limitation-Held, final order passed by Tribunal is D 
executable u/s. 27 within one year from the date of its becoming 
fi11al-Tribunal has rightly held the application as bamd by limitatio11. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2237 of 
1997. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.4.96 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, Jodhpur, Rajasthan in O.A.No. 466 of 1994. 
L.C. Goyal and Ms. Surita Bamezai for the Appellant. 
Ms. Kamakshi Mehlwal, Ms. Kanupriya and A.K. Sharma for the 
Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Delay condoned. Leave granted. 
We have heard learned counsel on both sides. 
This appeal, by special leave, arises from the order of the Central 
Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur, made on April 16, 1996 in O.A. No: 
E 
F 
G 
466/94. 
. H 
1157 
A 
B 
c 
1158 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1997] 2 S.C.R. 
The appellant was initially suspended and charge-sheet was laid 
against him on April 29, 1974. His order of dismissal was ultimately set 
aside and thereafter he was reinstated into the service by the Tribunal's 
order dated March 13, 1992 in 0.A. No. 261/91. It would appear that while 
setting aside the order of dismissal the Tribunal had passed the order that 
the appellant was entitled to all consequential benefits which he could have 
earned had he been in service. Since in spite of his representations, he was 
not given consequential benefits, he filed contempt application on Decem-
ber 11, 1992, which was dismissed by the Tribunal on July 29, 1993. 
Thereafter, the appellant filed the present O.A. for a direclfon to imple-
. ment the order dated March 13, 1992. The Tribunal· dismissed the same by 
the impugned order dated April 16, 1996 on the ground th;tt the application 
of the appellant was barred by limitation. Thus this appeal by special leave. 
The only question is : . whether the application seeking implementa-
_tion of the earlier order of the Tribunal was barred by limitation? Section 
D 27 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short, 'the Act') envisages 
thus: 
E 
F 
G 
H 
"27. Execution of orders of a Tribunal. - Subject to the other 
provisions of this Act and the rules, the order of a Tribunal finally 
disposing of an application or an appeal shall be final and shall 
not be called in question in any court (including a High Court) 
and such order shall be executed in the same manner in which any 
. final order of the nature referred to in clause (a) of sub-section 
(2) of Section 20 (whether or not such final order had actually 
been made) in respect of th.e grievance to which the application 
relates would have been executed." 
Relevant part to sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act postulates 
that: 
"(2) For the purposes of sub-section (1) of Section 20, a person 
shall be deemed to have availed of all the remedies available to 
him under the relevant service rules as to redressal of grievances,--
(a) if a final order has been made by Government or other 
authority or officer or other person competent to pass such order 
under such rules, rejecting any appeal preferred or representation 
made by such person in connection with the grievance." 
I
-· 
... 
H.R. KHINVSARA v. U.0.1. 
1159 
Section 21 prescribes limitation in that behalf. Sub-section (l)(a) of A 
Section 21 postulates that : 
"(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 B 
with the grievance unless the application is made, within one year 
from the date on which such final order has been made." 
Thus it could be seen that the final order passed by the Tribunal is 
executable under Section 27 of the Act within one year fromthe date of 
il~ becoming final
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.