Belated Representation Does Not Extend Limitation for CAT Claims; Court Refrains From Recovery in Special Case

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Rajesh Bindal heard an appeal against a short order of the Karnataka High Court dated 8 March 2018 which had dismissed a writ challenging an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru. The lis concerned whether a government servant who received financial upgradations under the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) scheme could, by a belated representation, claim earlier benefits under the erstwhile Assured Career Progression (ACP) scheme and whether the original application before the Tribunal was time-barred.

The Court held that the Administrative Tribunal and the High Court erred in not considering the maintainability objection: a highly belated representation cannot defer the date of accrual of cause of action and cannot be used to stretch the limitation prescribed under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The Court explained the correct approach to Sections 20 and 21 of the 1985 Act and emphasised that limitation for filing an original application under Section 19 “has to be reckoned keeping in mind the date of accrual of the cause of action and the proximity of the date of the representation”. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “We hold that except in cases where final orders are passed on appeals/revisions/memorials/representations which are statutorily provided, limitation for the purpose of filing an original application under Section 19 of the 1985 Act, in view of the above-referred decisions and Sections 21 and 20 thereof, has to be reckoned keeping in mind the date of accrual of the cause of action and the proximity of the date of the representation, and the period of one year for filing an original application has to be counted from the date of expiry of six months from date of such a representation if no order were passed thereon. Needless to observe, the cause of action cannot be deferred by making a highly belated representation and awaiting its outcome.” The Court also recorded that, in view of the respondent’s retirement and compassionate considerations under Articles 15(3) and 41 of the Constitution, and by exercise of its powers under Article 142, it would “refrain from directing the respondent to refund any surplus amount received by her over and above her entitlement.”

Background

The respondent joined Doordarshan Kendra, Bangalore in 1985 as a TV News and Film Librarian. She received a first financial upgradation under the ACP scheme in 2002 with effect from 9 August 1999. The ACP contemplated upgradations after 12 and 24 years; the MACP (2009) provided upgradations after 10, 20 and 30 years measured by grade pay following the revised pay rules and included a provision that earlier ACP upgradations to merged grade pays could be ignored for MACP purposes. The respondent received second and third financial upgradations under MACP in 2010 and 2015 respectively but, in October 2016, she made a representation seeking benefit of the second ACP upgradation retroactively from 11 March 2009 and enhancement of subsequent MACP benefit. The representation was rejected on 5 November 2016 and she filed an original application before the Tribunal, which allowed her claim relying on the Karnataka High Court decision in B. D. Kadam. The High Court dismissed the appellants’ writ petition and noted that an SLP against B. D. Kadam remained undecided at that stage (the SLP was later dismissed on 27 January 2020).

The appellants contended that subsequent decisions of this Court (including Union of India v. N.M. Raut and related orders) called for reconsideration and that the OA was barred by limitation. The Supreme Court traversed earlier authorities on the “representation and relief” syndrome (including C. Jacob, M.K. Sarkar, S.S. Rathore, State of Uttaranchal v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari and Chaman Rana) and explained that where service rules provided for statutory representations/appeals those remedies had to be exhausted; where representations were non‑statutory, a claimant must make them expeditiously and cannot revive a dead or stale claim by a highly belated representation. The Court found the respondent’s representation of October 2016 to be belated in relation to the accrual of her cause of action and held that the Tribunal should not have entertained the OA as within limitation. Noting that the Tribunal’s order had been implemented and the respondent had already received financial benefits and having regard to her retirement in 2018, the Court exercised equitable discretion and declined to order recovery of amounts already paid. The appeal was accordingly disposed of without disturbing the impugned order’s practical effect.

Case No.: 2025 INSC 565 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 6289/2019) Case Title: The Chief Executive Officer & Others v. S. Lalitha & Others Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Not indicated in the judgment For the Respondent(s): Not indicated in the judgment