Retired Excise Department clerk sought arrears of increments from 1990 to 2008, relying on a 2008 Division Bench judgment. The Court upheld restriction of arrears to three years, citing delay of eight years in approaching the Tribunal, Section 21 limitation, and Supreme Court precedent limiting arrears to three years.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
CWPOA No. 6033 of 2020
Date of decision: 09.04.2024
Shri Ram Dass Premi …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. …Respondents Co ram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the Petitioner: Mr. Govind Raj Gaur, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, A.G. with Mr. I.N. Mehta, Mr. Y. W. Chauhan, Sr. Addl. A.Gs., Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Mr. Navlesh Verma, Addl. A.Gs. and Mr. Raj Negi, Dy. A.G.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral)
The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs:-
(I) To quash and set aside the impugned order dated 03.11.2018 contained in Annexure A-2 being arbitrary, illegal and against the spirit of the judgments referred to in this original application with all consequential benefis.
(ii) To direct the respondents to release all the arrears of increments/pay & allowances w.e.f. 01.07.1990 to 29.02.2008 as per the judgment dated 22.12.2008 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of H.P. in case CWP No. 272 of 2005, titled as State of H.P. & Anr. vs. Madhvinder Sharma.
2
“(i) To direct the respondents to release all the 11 increments for the service rendered by the applicant in the Department of Excise & Taxation, Himachal Pradesh from 01.07.1990 to 2000.
(ii) To direct the respondents to grant the consequential benefits in favour of the applicant flowing out of the pay fixation an grant of 11 increments alongwith arrears and interest thereupon.”
3
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record.
4
29.02.2008. However, the petitioner waited for nearly eight (8) years to approach the Tribunal for the first time only in the year, 2016.
5
years. It is further held that if there is negligence or omission on the part of the writ petitioner in filing the petition, which in the given facts and circumstances would cause prejudice to the opposite party, the High Court may even refuse to entertain the petition.
“21. Limitation. - (1) A Tribunal shall not admit an application,—
(a) in a case where a final order such as is mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 20 has been made in connection with the grievance unless the application is made, within one year from the date on which such final order has been made;
6
(b) in a case where an appeal or representation such as is mentioned in clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 20 has been made and a period of six months had expired thereafter without such final order having been made, within one year from the date of expiry of the said period of six months.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where-
(a) the grievance in respect of which an application is made had arisen by reason of any order made at any time during the period of three years immediately preceding the date on which the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunal becomes exercisable under this Act in respect of the matter to which such order relates; and
(b) no proceedings for the redressal of such grievance had been commenced before the said date before any High Court, the application shall be entertained by the Tribunal if it is made within the period referred to in clause (a), or, as the case may be, clause (b), of sub-section (1) or within a period of six months from the said date, whichever period expires later.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), an application may be admitted after the period of one year specified in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) or, as the case may be, the period of six months specified in sub-section (2), if the applicant satisfies the Tribunal that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period.”
7
limitation and it was held that Section 21 of the Act unambiguously mandates the period within which Government employee has to agitate before the Tribunal for consideration and adjudication of his case and it is apt to reproduce the following observations:
“A reading of the plain language of the above reproduced Section makes it clear that the Tribunal cannot admit an application unless the same is made within the time specified in clauses (a) and (b) of Section 21 (1) or Section 21 (2) or an order is passed in terms of subsection (3) for entertaining the application after the prescribed period. Since Section 21 (1) is couched in negative form, it is the duty of the Tribunal to first consider whether the application is within limitation. An application can be admitted only if the same is found to have been made within the prescribed period or sufficient cause is shown for not doing so within the prescribed period and an order is passed under Section 21 (3).
In the present case, the Tribunal entertained and decided the application without even adverting to the issue of limitation. Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to explain this omission by pointing out that in the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, no such objection was raised but we have not felt impressed. In our view, the Tribunal cannot abdicates its duty to act in accordance with the statute under which it is established and the fact that an objection of limitation is not raised by the respondent / non-applicant is not at all relevant.”
8
due diligence as to why he kept sleeping over a period of 8 years.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge
(Sushil Kukreja) 9th April, 2024 Judge
(sanjeev)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether arrears of increments and pay for the pre-2008 period could be restricted to three years prior to the claim.
Whether the petition was barred by delay and laches and by Section 21 limitation under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of H.P. & Anr. vs. Madhvinder SharmaReferred¶8
CWP No. 272 of 2005, State of H.P. & Anr. vs. Madhvinder Sharma
Jai Dev Gupta vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.Relied on¶5
Jai Dev Gupta vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. AIR 1998 SC 2819 · Who else cites this
Anand Swarup Singh vs. State of PunjabRelied on¶9
Anand Swarup Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1972 SC 2638 · Who else cites this
Sakaldeep Sahal Srivastava vs. Union of India & Anr.Relied on¶9
Sakaldeep Sahal Srivastava vs. Union of India & Anr. AIR 1974 SC 338 · Who else cites this
Smt. J. Tiwari vs. Smt. Jawala Devi Vidya Mandir & Ors.Relied on¶9
Smt. J. Tiwari vs. Smt. Jawala Devi Vidya Mandir & Ors. AIR 1981 SC 122 · Who else cites this
M. R. Gupta vs. Union of India & Ors.Relied on¶9
M. R. Gupta vs. Union of India & Ors. (1995) 5 SCC 628 · Who else cites this
State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Kulbir SinghRelied on¶9
State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Kulbir Singh (1997) 11 SCC 394 · Who else cites this
Jaswant Singh vs. Punjab Poultry Field Staff Association & Ors.Relied on¶9
Jaswant Singh vs. Punjab Poultry Field Staff Association & Ors. (2002) 1 SCC 261 · Who else cites this
Shiv Dass vs. Union of India & Ors.Relied on¶10
Shiv Dass vs. Union of India & Ors. (2007) 9 SCC 274 · Who else cites this
Union of India & Ors. vs. Tarsem SinghRelied on¶9
Union of India & Ors. vs. Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 648 · Who else cites this
D.C.S. Negi vs. Union of India and othersRelied on¶14
D.C.S. Negi vs. Union of India and others, SLP (C) No.7956 of 2011
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Shri Ram Dass Premi
State of H.P.
Anr.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan
Sushil Kukreja
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
