In Absence Of Provision For Making Representation Against Final Orders, Remedy Of Aggrieved Public Servant Challenging Adverse Action Of Authorities Would Lie Directly Before CAT: Supreme Court

The challenge in the appeal was made to a short order of the Karnataka High Court dismissing a writ petition challenging a judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru whereby it allowed an original application of the respondent.

The Division Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Rajesh Bindal held, “Bare reading of the opening words of Section 20 of the 1985 Act with sub-section (1), which requires exhaustion of other available remedies as a general precondition for entertaining original applications under Section 19, refers to remedies that are available under the relevant service rules as to redressal of grievances against final orders. If the relevant service rules do not provide for making of a representation against final orders, by reason of absence of such a provision, the remedy of the aggrieved applicant-public servant would lie directly before the CAT in challenging the order/action of the authorities adverse or prejudicial to his interest; and, in such a case, an original application ought not to be rejected mechanically on the ground that all “remedies” have not been exhausted. However, it cannot be gainsaid that if the relevant service rules do provide for making of a representation, the remedy made available has to be exhausted unless an exceptional case is set up.”

AOR Sahil Bhalaik represented the Appellant, while AOR Anuradha Mutatkar represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The respondent joined as TV News and Film Librarian (Library & Information Assistant) at Doordarshan Kendra, Bangalore on March 11, 1985. On May 31, 2002, the appellant received the benefit of financial upgradation under the Assured Career Progression Scheme, 1999, for the first time w.e.f. August 9, 1999. Since the respondent had not been promoted to a higher post till September 1, 2008, she was granted the second benefit envisaged in the MACP Scheme. In due course of time, w.e.f. July 11, 2015, the respondent was granted the benefit of third financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme.

The respondent submitted a representation to the Director General, Doordarshan, the third appellant, to grant her the benefit of second financial upgradation under ACP Scheme and the third financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme with Grade Pay of Rs.7,600, but the same was rejected. However, the Tribunal allowed her application and the same came to be affirmed by the High Court. Thereafter, certain subsequent developments were drawn to the Court’s notice by the appellants, and it had been urged that the Court may examine the issue of the respondent’s entitlement in the light of such developments and notwithstanding that compliance with the Tribunal’s order had been secured.

Reasoning

The Bench noticed that the respondent claimed benefits of financial upgradation on completion of 24 years of service with effect from the date of grant of financial upgradation to her was due in terms of the ACP Scheme, which got delayed and, in the interregnum, the MACP Scheme intervened. An objection was raised by the appellants that the Original application (O.A.) of the Appellant was time-barred and ought to have been dismissed as such.

The Bench found that the respondent had received the second benefit of financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme in August 2010 and even the third benefit sometime in November 2015. She claimed the grant of the second benefit of financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme, due to her in March 2009, as late as in October 2016 by making a representation. Fortuitously for the respondent, she did not have to approach the Tribunal for getting her representation decided, because within 32 days of receipt thereof, the Dy. Director (S.II) rejected such representation. “However, although limitation laws do not apply to writ jurisdiction, in relation to service disputes triable under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the laws of limitation traceable in Section 21 read with Section 20 thereof do apply”, it said.

Referring to the decision in S.S. Rathore v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1989), the Bench said, “As noted in S.S. Rathore (supra) and as is still the present position, service rules (rules relating to conduct, discipline and appeal, leave, pension, etc.) governing public servants do have provisions providing for first appeals, second appeals (not ordinarily), revisions against original/appellate orders, or memorials (not ordinarily). In rare cases, such rules may also provide for representations against actions which affect the public servants and are perceived by them to be not in accordance with law. In any event, even though service rules may not provide for a representation, there could be cases (to be discussed hereafter) where omission or failure to consider and dispose of a representation could give rise to a claim to move the CAT.”

The Bench thus clarified, “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. We also make it clear that different considerations would arise in a case of a continuous wrong, which has to be decided in the light of the decision of this Court in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh.”

The Bench thus stated that the respondent should have, if she felt aggrieved by the action of the appellants in granting her benefits of financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme instead of the ACP Scheme, availed of the remedy before the Tribunal immediately after her rights were affected. She ought not to have waited for so long to ventilate her grievance through a belated representation. Filing of such belated representation, which was rejected in no time, did not have the effect of postponing the cause of action and stretching the period of limitation to render the O.A. as filed within time.

“Both fora, i.e., the Tribunal as well as the High Court, did not rule on the objection of maintainability of the O.A. despite such objection being sound. The reasons that we have assigned would lead to the irresistible conclusion that the O.A. was time-barred and should not have been entertained by the Tribunal”, it held.

Thus, noting that the respondent had retired in 2018 and she had received certain financial benefits, the Bench said, “During the winter years of her life, financial support will become essential to ensure that she can live a life of dignity and purpose, exercising her right to a fulfilling existence. Regard being had to the same and bearing in mind the provision contained in Article 15(3) of the Constitution enabling the State to make special provisions inter alia for women and that Article 41 thereof provides guidance for the policy of the State to be aimed at providing assistance in cases of inter alia old age, we, in due exercise of our power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and considering this case as a very special case, refrain from directing the respondent to refund any surplus amount received by her over and above her entitlement.”

Cause Title: The Chief Executive Officer & Others v. S. Lalitha & Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 565)

Appearance:

Appellants: AOR Sahil Bhalaik, Advocates Tushar Giri, Siddharth Anil Khanna, Ritik Arora, Shivam Mishra, Gulshan Jahan, Murshlin Ansari, Sewa Singh

Respondents: AOR Anuradha Mutatkar

Click here to read/download Judgment