RAMESH CHAND SHARMA ETC. versus UDHAM SINGH KAMAL AND ORS.

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 613 · Decided: 12-10-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.P. KURDUKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

RAMESH CHAND SHARMA ETC. 
A 
v. 
UDHAM SINGH KAMAL AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 12, 1999 
[S.P. KURDbKAR AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.) 
B 
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985-S.21(1) & (3)--,-Limita-
tion-Promotion-Senior employee in feeder cadre not considered-Repre-
sentation for non-consideration rejected on 2. 7. 91-Application before 
Tribunal filed on 2.6.94-No application for condonation of delay C 
filed-Tribunal admitting and disposing of the application on merits-Validity 
of-Held, Tribunal not justified-Application dismissed as ba"ed by limita-
tion-Service Law. 
Appeal:-New pleadings-No foundation laid before Tribunal-Held, 
cannot be entertained .. 
Appellant working as Translator-cum Legal Assistant was promoted 
to the post of Assistant Legislative Draftsman (Hindi) Class II (Gazetted), 
vide Order dated 22.4.91. Respondent No. 1 who was senior to appellant 
D 
was not considered for promotion. He made a representation on 1.5.91 E 
which was rejected on 2.7.1991 on the ground that since he did not possess 
the requisite experience of three years in feeder cadre, he was not eligible 
for promotion. Thereafter, respondent no. 1 filed an application on 2.6.94 
before the Administrative Tribunal. Though an objection was raised by 
the appellant that the said application was beyond the period of limita-
tion, application for condonation of delay was not filed. The Tribunal 
F 
admitted and disposed of the application on merits. Hence the present 
appeal. 
On behalf of appellant it was contended that in the absence of any 
application for condonation of delay under S.21(3) of the Administrative G 
Tribunals Act, 1985 the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to admit and dispose 
of the application on merits. 
On behalf of respondent no. 1 it was contended that after the 
rejection of representation by the Government on 2.6.91, another repre-
sentation pointing out the factual position was made and thus the period H 
613 
,_ 
614 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] SUPP,3 S.C.R. 
A of limitation needs to be counted not from 2.7.91 but from the date of 
rejection of his second represenation the vacancy arose because the per-
son working on the promotional post went on deputation by keeping a 
lien on the said post and he was under a bona fide belief that until the 
lien comes to an end, there may not be a clear vacancy and therefore he 
B 
did not file 0.A. on early date. 
Allowing the appeals and setting aside the order of Tribunal, the 
Court 
, 
~ 
HELD : 1. In view of the statutory provision contained in S.21(1) of 
c 
the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the Tribunal was not justified in 
admitting and disposing of on merits the application filed beyond the 
pel,'iod of three years. [618-B] 
Secretary to Government of India and Others v. Shivram Mahadu Gaik-
wad, [1995] Supp. 3 SCC 231, relied on. 
D 
2. The explanation given by respondent no. 1, for delay in filing the 
application cannot be entertained as no foundation thereof was laid before 
the Tribunal. [617-H; 618-A] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDCITTION : Civil Appeal No. 3119 of 
E 1997 Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.8.96 of the Himachal Pradesh 
Administrative Tribunal, at Shimla in O.A. No. 631 of 1994. 
Jitendra Sharma, Ms. Minakshi Vij and P.N. Jha for the Appellants. 
F 
Naresh K Sharma, Avtar Singh Rawat and KS. Chauhan for the 
[ 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
G 
S.P. KURDUKAR, J. These two civil appeals can be conveniently 
disposed of by this common judgment since they are filed against the 
common order dated 6th August, 1996 passed by the Himachal Pradesh 
Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') in O.A. No. 631 of 1994. 
Civil Appeal No. 3119 of 1997 is filed by Ramesh Chand Sharma who has 
-11. 
been promoted to the selection post as Assistant Legislative Draftsman 
H (Hindi) class II (gazetted) on being recommended by the Departmental 
) 
R.C. SHARMA v. UDHAM SINGH KAMAL (S.P. KURDUKAR, J.] 615 
promotion Committee. Civil Appeal No. 3120 of 1997 is filed by the State 
of Himachal Pradesh. 
2. Feeder cadre to the selection post is Translator-cum-Legal Assis-
tant. Under the relevant rules called "Recruitment and Promotion Rules" 
framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh prescribed the condition 
precedent of at least three years experience in a feeder cadre i.e. Trans-
lator-cum-Legislative Assistant or Proof Reader. The Government of 
Himachal Pradesh accepted the recommendation of the DPC and 
promoted Ramesh Chand Sh

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.