HARBANS LAL Vs. H.P.STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India raises a very short question, viz. whether the limitation prescribed under Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 for filing an application can be claimed on the ground that no action has been taken on a second representation made long after the expiry of the time limit for challenging the rejection of the earlier representation or the very action of the Respondent by which the Petitioner feels aggrieved.

(2.) Facts relevant for deciding the aforesaid question may be noticed. The Petitioner had been working as a Headmaster in Public High School, Pubowal in the then Hoshiarpur District of Punjab State, in the year 1966 when the said school was taken over by the State of Punjab with effect from 28.10.1966 vide letter No. 9929-Pr. 17/53-65. Pr. dated Nil (copy Annexure P-3). The Petitioner was getting basic pay of Rs. 160/- plus dearness allowances at the time of taking over of that school. The services of the Petitioner were also taken over by the Government, but not as the Headmaster, the post he was holding at that time. His services were taken over as a master and he was given the basic pay of Rs. 110/-. No procedure was followed to reduce his rank as also the pay. He appears to have made a representation which was rejected on August 3, 1967 on the ground that his services as Headmaster could not be taken over because he did not fulfil the condition of continuous service of three years in that capacity. Admittedly the Petitioner had been in service for a period of less than three years as Headmaster and that too on ad hoc basis when the school was taken over. After the dismissal of his representation, vide communication dated 3rd August, 1967, the Petitioner took no remedial measures for the redressal of his grievances for more than 22 years. On 20.1.1990 he made another representation, citing the example of a Headmaster of a school which too was taken over and the services of that Headmaster were taken over as Headmaster by the Punjab State, inspite of the fact that Headmaster had also not completed three years of service in that capacity. In the year 1992 he filed an O.A. being O.A. No. 1514/92 before the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, claiming that his services were required to be taken over as Headmaster. He alleged that his representation (made in January 1990) had been pending with the authorities concerned for more than two years. The Tribunal vide order dated November 4, 1997 dismissed the Original Application on the ground that the same is barred by time.

(3.) Petitioner's grievance is that when his second representation had been entertained, limitation was required to be computed from the date of such representation.