PURAN CHAND SHARMA Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the Order of the learned H.P. State Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) dated 27.12.1999, whereby the Original Application No. 161/1989 of the petitioner was dismissed as being barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) THE petitioner was employed with respondents 1 and 2. He is aggrieved against the promotion of respondent No. 3. The petitioner claimed that he was senior to respondent No. 3 and had wrongly been overlooked. He had filed an appeal, which was rejected by the respondent on 16.11.1988. The O.A. was filed on 6th May, 1989. Respondents 1 and 2 in the reply took up the plea that application is barred under Section 20 of the Act since the petitioner had an alternative remedy and not availed the remedy of appeal available to him under the CCS (CCA) Rules. According to the State the applicant had filed a representation against the order of the Director, Land Records dated 7.4.1983 promoting the respondent No. 3 to the Director of Land Records with copy of the Chief Secretary, Government of Himachal Pradesh and Financial Commissioner to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Admittedly the appellate authority was the Financial Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh. The representation of the petitioner was rejected on 16.11.1988.

(3.) THIS Court has held in Mohinder Singh Malhi v. The Commissioner Municipal Corporation and another. Latest HLJ 2001 (HP.) 439 as follows : "8. In this connection, it may be profitable to refer to Section 21 of the Act, which provides limitation. It enacts that the Tribunal shall not admit an application in a case where a final order as mentioned under sub -section (2)(a) of Section 20 has been made in connection with the grievance of the applicant. Subsection (2)(a) of Section 20 states that for the purposes of subsection (1), a person shall be deemed to have availed of all the remedies available to him under the relevant service rules as to redressal of grievances when the final order is made rejecting an appeal on representation. Clause (a) of Section 21(1) provides that if a final order has been made by Government or other authority or officer or other person competent to pass such order under such rules, rejecting any appeal preferred or representation made by such person in connection with the grievance an application can be made within one year from the date of such final order. 9. In the instant case, the grievance of the petitioner before the State Government was the action taken by the 1st respondent. Therefore, even if it is assumed that there was no appeal and what was submitted was merely a representation to the Government, then also, the case was covered by sub -section 1 (2)(a) of Section 20 of the Act and it was open to the petitioner to invoke Section 21(1) of the Act and Section 21(2) has no application. And as the final order was passed in January, 1990 and the petition was filed in August, 1990, it was within time."