SHAKUNTLA DEVI Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner challenges the order of the State Administrative Tribunal dismissing the claim for grant of benefit of past service which has been rendered by her with Beas Satluj Link High School Slapper before her absorption in the State services. She claimed continuity in service and grant of increments on the basis of her previous service. The Tribunal holds that the petition is barred by the provisions of Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, as the petitioner agitated the matter after a period of eleven years from the accrual of the cause of action. The Tribunal reaches this conclusion by holding that the cause of action if any arose to the petitioner herein in the year, 1979 and she could not agitate this case after a period of more then 11 years.

(2.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. We find that Original Application No. (M)89/1994 was filed by the petitioner, which was disposed of by an order dated 17th May, 1994, (annexure P -3), holding that the notice served by the petitioner dated 20th January, 1994 has not been decided. Accordingly, the Tribunal directed the Original Application to be treated as a representation to the Secretary (Education) to be disposed of in accordance with law and decide it within a period of three months with liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach the Tribunal again on the same cause of action. This representation was disposed of by the Commissioner -cum -Secretary (Education) vide his order dated 23rd September, 1994, (annexure P -4), observing that the petitioner was not entitled for benefits of past services rendered with the Beas Satluj Link, which is an autonomous organisation independent of the State of Himachal Pradesh. The order also states that the claim is stale and cannot be agitated after a period of 15 years. This order was challenged by the petitioner.

(3.) THE case of the petitioner was that she had been running for pillar to post to obtain her service record to enable her to substantiate her claim for grant of benefit of past service. The Secretary (Education) has not dealt with this particular/aspect of the matter but simply glossed over the facts. We also find from the record that one Sh. Brij Lal, who was also working with the Beas Satluj Link, was granted benefit of his past service rendered with the Board by order dated 24th February, 1979. Different standards cannot be adopted by the State. If the other employees of the Beas Satluj Link whose services were taken over by the State have been granted continuity of service and given the benefit of increments etc., the petitioner cannot be deprived of this benefit. We find that the Secretary (Education) has not dealt with this aspect of the matter satisfactorily. In fact, he completely ignored it. On the question of limitation it is trite to observe that the law is well settled that repeated representations do not extend limitation. So far as the question of pay fixation is concerned, it is a continuing cause of action. On this point the Supreme Court in M.R., Gupta Vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1996 Supreme Court 669 has held: -