The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing an application as time-barred under Section 21(1)(b) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
The writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
17.WP2883_2021
Vidya Amin
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2883 OF 2021
T. Dharmaraj, Scientist .. Petitioner vs.
Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents
Mr. A.P. Anil Kumar for the petitioner. Ms. Neeta Masurkar for the respondent/UOI.
CORAM :- DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ & G. S. KULKARNI, J.
Date :- July 17, 2021.
PC :
1. By an order dated April 19, 2017, the petitioner was reverted
from the post of Scientist-E to Scientist-D. On April 21, 2017, the petitioner filed a representation objecting to such reversion. The same proved abortive, since no response was received. The petitioner also does not appear to have pursued such representation till February 7, 2020 when the original application, out of which this writ petition arises, was presented before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai. The tribunal by its order dated September 7, 2020 dismissed the original application as time barred. The said order is challenged in this writ petition.
2. We have heard Mr. Kumar, learned advocate for the petitioner. We have also read Section 21(1)(b) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985,
1/2
17.WP2883_2021
in terms whereof the original application ought to have been presented within 18 months from April 21, 2017, i.e., the date when the petitioner first represented against the order of reversion before the respondents. We, thus, see no illegality in the order of the tribunal. We also agree with the tribunal that filing of repeated representations, not provided by law, would not stretch the period of limitation.
3. In the result, the order under challenge is upheld. The writ petition
stands dismissed. No costs.
(G. S. KULKARNI, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)
2/2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the original application before the Administrative Tribunal was time-barred as it was filed after the 18-month limitation period from the petitioner's representation.
Whether repeated representations filed by the petitioner would extend the period of limitation under Section 21(1)(b) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
T. Dharmaraj
Union of India
Dipankar Datta
G. S. Kulkarni
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
