V. GOPALAN Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition invoking Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, filed challenging the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam - 'Tribunal', for short.

(2.) HEARD the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan.

(3.) THE learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner making reference to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Devakinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar [ : (1971) 2 SCC 330], argued that delay cannot be pitted against such a claim because it stands on a continuing cause of action. The learned counsel for KVS argued that there is culpable delay and it should be taken that no request for counting the past service was made at any time after the petitioner entered service in KVS. He also referred to the decision of the Apex Court in Appeal (Civil) No.1251 of 2008 [K.V. Sangathan & Anr. v. Raghunandan Bhargava & Ors] to say that pro -rata contribution has to be made by the prior employer, in this case, the State Government, on behalf of the aided school, even if the reliefs sought for by the petitioner were to be granted.