STATE OF TRIPURA & ORS. versus ARABINDA CHAKRABORTY & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 5 S.C.R. 281 · Decided: 21-04-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ANIL R. DAVE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 5 S.C.R. 281 
STATE OF TRIPURA & ORS. 
v. 
ARABINDA CHAKRABORTY & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No.1322 of 2007) 
APRIL 21, 2014 
··I 
[ANIL R. DAVE AND VIKRAMAJIT SEN, JJ.] 
Limitation: 
A 
B 
Suit -
Period of limitation -
Services of plaintiff C 
terminated for remaining unauthorisedly absent - Given a 
fresh appointment on purely temporary basis - Suit filed after 
12 years claiming seniority from the date of initial 
appointment and claiming limitation from the date of rejection 
of his last representation - Held: Period of /imitation would 0 
commence from the date on which cause of action takes 
place - Simply by making a representation, when there is no 
statutory provision or there is no statutory appeal provided, 
period of limitation would not get extended - Law does not 
permit extension of period of /imitation by mere filing of a 
representation - Period of limitation would not Commence E 
from the date on which the last representation is decided - In 
the instant ca~e, there was no provision with regard to any 
statutory appeal -Respondent kept on making representations 
one after another and all the representations were rejected -
Courts below committed an error by considering the date of F 
rejection of last representation as the date on which cause of 
action had arisen - Orders of courts below are set aside - Suit 
stands dismissed - Service law. 
Service Law: 
Seniority - Initial appointment terminated for employee 
being unathorisedly absent - Subsequently employee given 
fresh appointment on temporary basis - Claim for seniority 
281 
G 
H 
282 . 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2014] 5 S.C.R. 
A from initial employment - Held: Services of respondent in his 
first employment having been terminated because of his 
unauthorised absence, there could nqt have been any 
question with regard to continuity of service with effect from 
first employment. 
B 
Respondent no. 1, on his appointment as Librarian, 
joined his duties on 12.9.1964. From 1.8.1966 to 20.9.1967 
respondent no. 1 remained unauthorisedly absent and, 
therefore, his services were terminated. However, he was 
C given a fresh appointment as Librarian, by order dated 
22.11.1967, on purely temporary basis. Respondent no. 
1 made a representation to count his seniority from the 
date of his initial appointment as Librarian in 1964. The 
said representation was rejected in 1973. The final 
seniority list was published in 1975 in which the service 
D of respondent no. 1 was shown to have commenced 
from 22.11.1967 as per fresh appointment. Respondent 
no. 1 continued unsuccessfully to make representations 
and ultimately filed a title suit in 1979. The appellant· 
employer contested the suit stating that the suit having 
E been filed after more than 13 years from the date of 
joining the service in 1967, was barred by limitation. The 
suit was decreed and the employer's first appeal and 
second appeal were dismissed. 
F 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Simply by making a representation, when 
there is no statutory provision or there is no statutory 
appeal provided, the period of limitation would not get 
extended. The law does not permit extension of period 
G of limitation by mere filing of a representation. Nor would 
the period of limitation commence from the date on which 
the last representation is decided. [Para 10] [288-C-D] 
1.2. In the instant case, the suit was hopelessly 
H barred by law of limitation. It is a fact that services of the 
STATE OF TRIPURA v. ARABINDA CHAKRABORTY 283 
respondent in his first employment had 6een lerminat~p A 
because of his unauthorised absence· and he- was given 
a fresh appointment order on 22.11.1967 and, therefore, 
there c;ould n~t have been any-question with regard to 
continuity of service with ~ffect from the first employment. 
The respondent did not make any representation or 
B 
grievance when he was- given a fresh appointment. He 
knew if well that his services had been terminated and 
he was obliged by the appellant authorities by giving him 
a rresh appointment. Even after the draft seniority list was 
published on 11.11.19.72 and was finalized in September, c 
1975, the respondent did not file any ~uit but continued 
to make representations which were rejected throughout. 
[Para 10-12] [288-D-F, 289-C-E] 
1.3. It is a settled legal position that the period of 
limitation would commence from the date on which the 
D 
cause of action takes place. Had there been any statute 
giving right of

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