TAPAN KUMAR PRUSTY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 2. 11. 1998 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 2844 (C) of 1998 filed by the petitioners dismissing the same as barred by limitation. The impugned order has also been passed ex parte in absence of the petitioners and their counsel.

(2.) THE petitioners had filed the O.A. on 19.9.1997 claiming salary in the untrained scale instead of stipend which they were paid during the period of C.T. training. The training was completed on 31.3. 1996. The O.A. was dismissed on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala, : 1997ECR785(SC) in which the Apex Court has held that the law of limitation has to be applied with allits rigor prescribed by Statutes and Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. As the case of the petitioners was squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, the Tribunal dismissed the O.A. holding the same as barred by limitation.

(3.) IN the above regard, we may notice that in filing the appeals which are barred by time, the law of limitation applies and an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is to be filed. But, when we see the provision of Clause (3) of Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, we find that the Tribunal has been conferred with the powers to entertain the application even after expiry of the period of limitation if the applicant satisfies the Tribunal showing sufficient cause for not making the application within such period. As such, according to this clause, there is no necessity for filing a petition for condonation of delay in filing an O.A. Only the cause is to be explained for not making the application within the period specified under Section 21 (a) and (b) of the Administrative Tribunals Act. I Therefore, if the petitioner explains the cause for not making application within the period prescribed under Clauses (1) and (2} of Section 21 in the memo of O.A. itself, the Tribunal is bound to see whether the cause is explained sufficiently and the Tribunal is satisfied with this or not. However, it does not preclude the applicant from filing a separate petition explaining the cause for not making the application within the prescribed period.