LexTHE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER & OTHERS versus S. LALITHA & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1734 : 2025 INSC 565 The Chief Executive Officer & Others v. S. Lalitha & Others (Civil Appeal No. 5528 of 2025) 24 April 2025 [Dipankar Datta* and Rajesh Bindal, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the maintainability of the time-barred application of the employee before the tribunal, filed after rejection of a belated representation in service dispute. Headnotes† Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 – ss.20, 21 – Period of limitation – Respondent-government employee granted second benefit of financial upgradation envisaged under Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme-MACP in 2010 and third benefit in 2015 – Representation by the respondent before the appellant in 2016, seeking grant of the benefit of second financial upgradation under ACP Scheme from March, 2009 and the benefit of the third financial upgradation under the MACP from March, 2015 – Rejection of the representation – Challenge to – Application allowed by the tribunal, which was upheld by the High Court – Correctness: Held: Respondent claimed grant of second benefit of financial upgradation under ACPS due to her in 2009 as late as in 2016 – Respondent did not in the application plead and indicate the specific provision in the service rules in terms whereof she sought relief from the appellant – In the absence thereof, one has to proceed on the premise that she had made the representation on her own without the same being provided under any service rules applicable to her and it was a non-statutory representation – Period of limitation could not have been stretched by the respondent – Representation though not provided in the relevant rules governing service could yet be necessary and imperative when a legitimate service benefit is not conferred on the aggrieved public servant by the employer on his own either due to inaction or otherwise, and has to be made * Author [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1735 The Chief Executive Officer & Others v. S. Lalitha & Others expeditiously – Except in cases where final orders are passed on appeals/revisions/memorials/representations, statutorily provided, limitation for filing original application u/s.19, and ss.20, 21, to be reckoned keeping in mind date of accrual of the cause of action and proximity of the date of the representation, and period of one year for filing original application to be counted from the date of expiry of six months from date of such representation if no order were passed thereon – Cause of action cannot be deferred by making highly belated representation and awaiting its outcome – Respondent if aggrieved should have availed the remedy before the tribunal immediately after her rights were affected – She ought not to have waited for so long for ventilating her grievance through belated representation – Filing of such belated representation, which was rejected in no time, did not have the effect of postponing the cause of action and stretching the period of limitation so as to render the application as filed within time – Application was time- barred and should not have been entertained by the tribunal – High Court too erred in law by failing to examine its maintainability – In exercise of power u/Art.142, and considering it a very special case, no direction to respondent to refund any surplus amount received – Constitution of India – Art.142, 15(3), 41. [Paras 23, 24, 33-38] Case Law Cited C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining, 2008 INSC 1133 : [2008] 14 SCR 634 : (2008) 10 SCC 115; Union of India v. M.K. Sarkar, 2009 INSC 1288 : [2009] 16 SCR 249 : (2010) 2 SCC 59; Union of India v. N.M. Raut, 2024 INSC 1042 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3873 – distinguished. Union of India & Ors. v. S. Ranjit Samuel & Ors., 2022 INSC 340 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 368; Vice Chairman, DDA v. Narendra Kumar & Ors., 2022 INSC 276 : [2022] 4 SCR 480 : (2022) 11 SCC 641; State of Uttaranchal v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari, 2013 INSC 560 : [2013] 9 SCR 609 : (2013) 12 SCC 179; Union of India v. Chaman Rana, 2018 INSC 230 : [2018] 3 SCR 640 : (2018) 5 SCC 798; State of Orissa v. Laxmi Narayan Das, 2023 INSC 619 : [2023] 10 SCR 1049 : (2023) 15 SCC 273; S.S. Rathore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1989 INSC 268 : [1989] Supp. 1 SCR 43 : (1989) 4 SCC 582; D.B. Gohil v. Union of India (2010) 12 SCC 301; Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, 2008 INSC 930 : [2008] 12 SCR 104 : (2008) 8 SCC 648 – referred to. 1736 [2025] 4 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports B. D. Kadam
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.