RAMESH CHAND SHARMA ETC. versus UDHAM SINGH KAMAL AND ORS.

RAMESH CHAND SHARMA ETC. versus UDHAM SINGH KAMAL AND ORS.

The Tribunal was not justified in admitting and disposing of the application on merits where it was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation, and the respondent had not filed an application for condonation of delay. The statutory provisions under Section 21(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 are mandatory, and without invoking Section 21(3), the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

Parties
Appellant: Ramesh Chand Sharma; Respondent: Udham Singh Kamal; Appellant: State of Himachal Pradesh; Respondent: Avtar Singh Rawat; Respondent: K.S. Chauhan
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
12 October 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment at Supreme Court
Outcome
Appeals allowed; the impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside.
Legal Topics
Limitation, Promotion in Public Employment, Administrative Tribunals Act
Service Law Limitation Promotion in Public Employment Administrative Tribunals Act

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ramesh Chand Sharma

Appellant

Udham Singh Kamal

Respondent

State of Himachal Pradesh

Appellant

Avtar Singh Rawat

Respondent

K.S. Chauhan

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment at Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal was justified in admitting and disposing the application filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
  2. 2 Whether explanation for delay in filing the application could be entertained without proper foundation laid before the Tribunal.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal was not justified in admitting and disposing of the application on merits where it was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation, and the respondent had not filed an application for condonation of delay. The statutory provisions under Section 21(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 are mandatory, and without invoking Section 21(3), the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; the impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside.

Orders

  • Original Application (O.A. No. 631 of 1994) before Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal dismissed on ground of limitation.
  • Civil Appeal Nos. 3119 of 1997 and 3120 of 1997 are allowed.