LEELA SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Tribunal has held against the petitioner on merits as well as on the bar of limitation.

(2.) Since we agree with the Tribunal that the claim was barred by limitation, we need not trouble ourselves with the opinion of the Tribunal concerning the merits of the claim.

(3.) On the subject of limitation it be noted that the claim of the petitioner made before the Tribunal in the year 2012 was that second benefit under the Assured Career Progression Scheme ought to be granted to the petitioner in the year 2004. The basis for the claim was that ad-hoc service rendered by the petitioner since August 29, 1980 had to be counted in computing 24 years service rendered. As per the petitioner the department was clearly wrong in reckoning petitioner's service with effect from January 25, 1986. Neither party was at variance that prior to January 25, 1986 service rendered by the petitioner was ad-hoc and that it was only on January 25, 1986 that she was regularly appointed to the post whereon she was appointed on ad-hoc basis in the year 1980, being the post of Assistant Librarian.