Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 678‑R of 1983, decided on 10th April, 1984.

(On appeal from the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal dated 10th September, 1953. in Appeal No. 140 (R) of 1983).

Art.212(3)‑Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S. 4‑Civil ser vice‑Appeal‑Limitation‑Petitioner matting representation and departmental appeal against impugned order but receiving no res ponse‑Appeal before Tribunal not filed within prescribed period of limitation after waiting for 90 days‑Held, rightly dismissed by Tribunal as time‑barred‑No reason shown to differ with Tribunal on point‑Leave to appeal refused.

Petitioner in person.

Date of hearing : 14th April, 1984.

This petition for leave to appeal is directed against judgment, dated 10th September, 1983 of the Central Service Tribunal.

The petitioner's grievance in his appeal before the Tribunal was regard ing his claim to promotion from Grade‑11 to Grade‑14. A Departmental Promotion Committee had on 6th April, 1982, deferred the question of fitness for promotion of the petitioner. This action on the part of the Promotion Committee was approved by the competent authority on 13‑4‑1982. The petitioner made a representation in this behalf in May, 1982, which as stated by him was not considered and he thereafter repeated the representation through reminders. Ultimately according to him be oil 29‑5‑1983, applied to the Deputy Chief of the General Staff for redress but without any success, and an order what be called of final rejection of his representation was passed on 14‑4‑1983, which was communicated to him on 20th June, 1983. Thereafter he further stated, an appeal was filed before the Tribunal on 19‑7‑1983 which has been dismissed without consideration of merits on two grounds : one, as time‑barred and, two, as being incompe tent on account of the bar contained in section 4(1)(1)) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 because as held by the Tribunal, it related to "the fitness or other wise of a person to be appointed to or hold a particular post or to be pro moted to a higher grade".

The petitioner tried to highlight certain points regarding the merits of his case. This, however, could not be permitted unless he is able to satisfy the Court on the question of limitation and competency of his appeal.

On the question of limitation the petitioner again and again stressed that the final order from which he preferred the appeal was passed on 14‑4‑1983 and was communicated to him on 20th June, 1983, therefore, the appeal filed on 19‑7‑1983 was within limitation. He, however, remained unable to rebutt the assumption made by the Tribunal that the original order was passed against him on 6th April, 1982 (and in any case on 15th April, 1982). He did avail of opportunity of representation of departmental appeal and remain ders against the said order. If there was no response he could have filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal after waiting for 90 days within the prescribed period of limitation after the expiry of the 90 days. Thus, having failed to file the appeal within limitation, as discussed above it was rightly held to be time‑barred and dismissed accordingly. There is no reason to differ with the Tribunal on this point. Hence, it is not necessary to examine the second point. This petition accordingly fails on question of limitation and is accordingly dismissed.

S. Q. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.