Head
Note: Simply by making a
representation, when there is no statutory provision or there is no statutory
appeal provided, the period of limitation would not get extended. The law does
not permit extension of period of limitation by mere filing of a
representation. A person may go on making representations for years and in such
an event the period of limitation would not commence from the date on which the
last representation is decided. (Para 11)
It is a settled legal position that the period of limitation
would commence from the date on which the cause of action takes place. Had
there been any statute giving right of appeal to the respondent and if the
respondent had filed such a statutory appeal, the period of limitation would
have commenced from the date when the statutory appeal was decided. (Para 14)
REPORTABLE
IN
THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL
APPEAL NO. 1322 OF 2007
STATE
OF TRIPURA & ORS. …APPELLANTS
VERSUS
ARABINDA
CHAKRABORTY & ORS. ....RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T:
ANIL R. DAVE, J.
1.
Being aggrieved by the judgment delivered in
RSA No. 20 of 1998 by the High Court of Gauhati at Agartala on 17th March, 2006,
the State of Tripura and others-employers of respondent no.1 have filed this
appeal.
2.
The facts giving rise to the present appeal,
in a nutshell are as under:
Respondent No. 1 had been appointed as a
librarian by the Directorate of Education, Government of Tripura by an order dated
04.09.1964 and he had joined his duties at Birchandra Public Library, Agartala
on 12.09.1964.
While in service, he was sent to Banaras
Hindu University, Varanasi to undergo further education and to get
qualification of Bachelor of Library Science during the academic year 1965-66. After
completion of his studies, he had resumed his duties on 27.07.1966. Thereafter,
the respondent-employee had remained absent without any intimation or
sanctioned leave for about one year i.e. from 01.08.1966 to 20.09. 1967. During
his absence from service, by letter dated 13.08.1966, the respondent had been called
upon to report at the place of his duty within seven days, failing which his
service was to be terminated. Inspite of the said notice dated 13.08.1966, the
respondent did not report at the place of his work and therefore, a Memorandum
dated 14.11.1966 had been issued to the respondent calling upon him to resume
his duties, but as the respondent had not resumed his duties, his services had
been terminated. It was learnt subsequently that during the period when he had
remained unauthorisedly absent, he had undergone further studies and had
attained degree of Masters in Library Science and after attaining the said
qualification, he had once again approached the concerned authorities for his
reappointment. Looking at the fact that the respondent had become better
qualified, he was given a fresh appointment by an order dated 22.11.1967 on
purely temporary basis as a librarian and again he was posted at Birchandra
Public Library, Agartala, Tripura.
Though the respondent knew it well that
by virtue of an order dated 22.11.1967, he was given a fresh appointment on
purely temporary basis as a librarian and he had lost his earlier seniority, he
made a representation for his seniority in service from the day on which he was
initially appointed as a librarian in 1964. The representation made by the
respondent was rejected on 31.08.1973. It is also pertinent to note that a
draft seniority list of Librarians was
published on 11.11.1972 and thereafter, the said draft list was finalized and
the final seniority list was published on 24.09.1975. In the said seniority
list it was clearly shown that service of the respondent had commenced from
22.11.1967 in pursuance of his fresh appointment.
Inspite of the aforestated fact, the
respondent continued to make representations and all his representations were
rejected. Ultimately the respondent filed Title Suit No. 175 of 1979 on 19.09.1979
in the Court of Munsif, Sadar, West Tripura, praying for the aforestated
reliefs. In the said suit, the respondent had referred to all the
representations made by him and had also stated that reply to his last
representation was given on 15.1.1979 and therefore, the suit was filed within
the period of limitation.
In the written statement, the
employer-appellant had taken a specific stand with regard to limitation to the
effect that the respondent had filed the suit after more than 13 years because
he had joined his service in September, 1967 and he wanted, by virtue of the
prayer in the suit, that he should be deemed to have been appointed with effect
from 12.08.1964
The suit was decreed in favour of the
respondent and therefore, the appellant employer filed Title Appeal No. 28 of
1985 against the judgment dated 18.04.1985 delivered by the trial court. The
judgment delivered by the trial court was upheld by the appellate court and
therefore, second appeal was filed before the High Court which was also
dismissed by virtue of the impugned judgment.
3.
The learned counsel appearing for the
appellant- employer had submitted that the courts below had committed a mistake
by believing that the suit was filed within the period of limitation. The trial
court had expressed its view to the effect that the period of limitation would
start from the date on which last representation made by the respondent was
decided. Therefore, the suit was treated to have been filed within the period
of limitation and the said view was confirmed by both the appellate courts.
4.
The learned counsel for the appellant had
further submitted that on facts also, the courts below committed a mistake
because the respondent had been given a fresh appointment by an order dated
22.11.1967. Initial appointment made in 1964 had already been terminated as the
respondent had remained absent without sanctioned leave. He had further
submitted that upon perusal of the appointment order dated 22.11.1967, it is
clear that the respondent had been given a fresh appointment as a librarian on
temporary basis because his earlier appointment had already come to an end.
5.
It had been further submitted that the
respondent wanted continuity of service with effect from 12.08.1964 though his service
had already been terminated as he had remained absent unauthorisedly. In the
circumstances, the respondent had no right to have continuity of service. He
had further submitted that the respondent ought to have filed suit within 3
years from the date of order giving him fresh appointment if he was aggrieved
by the said order.
6.
Alternatively, it had been submitted that the
draft seniority list of Librarians had been published on 11.11.1972 which had been
finalized on 24.09.1975 and the said fact was known to the respondent. The
respondent was made aware of the fact that he was appointed with effect from
22.11. 1967 and in that event the period of limitation would start from
11.11.1972 when the draft seniority list was published or at the most with
effect from 24.09.1975 when the draft seniority list was finally published. Instead
of approaching the court, the respondent kept on making several representations
which had been rejected. His representation had been rejected on 19.07.1976.
Even after rejection of his representation on 19.07.1976 he had made another
representation on 16.02.1978 to the Director of Education, Tripura which had
also been rejected on 03.06.1978. Thereafter, he made another representation to
the Director of Education, which had also been rejected on 15.01.1979.
7.
Looking at the above facts, it had been
submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the title
suit ought to have been dismissed on the ground of limitation, however, not
only the suit had been decreed but the courts below had also confirmed the
judgment delivered by the trial court. He had further submitted that the appeal
deserved to be allowed with costs.
8.
On the other hand, the learned counsel
appearing for the respondent-employee had tried to support the judgments delivered
by the High Court and the trial court. He had submitted that the period of
limitation would start with effect from the date on which his representation
was finally rejected by his employer and as the suit had been filed on
19.09.1979, the suit was filed within the period of limitation.
9.
As the respondent had attained degree of
Masters in Library Science and he was taken back in service, his services were
rightly ordered to be continued by the trial court and the High Court had rightly
confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court. He had,
therefore, submitted that the appeal filed in this Court deserved to be
dismissed.
10.
We had heard the learned counsel appearing for
the parties and had also carefully gone through the relevant material
pertaining to appointment orders and the representations made by the respondent.
11.
In our opinion, the suit was hopelessly barred
by law of limitation. Simply by making a representation, when there is no
statutory provision or there is no statutory appeal provided, the period of
limitation would not get extended. The law does not permit extension of period
of limitation by mere filing of a representation. A person may go on making representations
for years and in such an event the period of limitation would not commence from
the date on which the last representation is decided. In the instant case, it
is a fact that the respondent was given a fresh appointment order on
22.11.1967, which is on record. The said appointment order gave a fresh appointment
to the respondent and therefore, there could not have been any question with
regard to continuity of service with effect from the first employment of the
respondent. It is pertinent to note that service of the respondent had been terminated
because of his unauthorised absence. It was unfortunate that the suit had been
filed after 13 years and therefore, the relevant record pertaining to the order
of termination of the respondent had been destroyed or could not be traced but
in such an event, no harm should be caused to the appellant-employer because
the appellant-employer was not supposed to keep the record pertaining to the
order terminating service of the respondent forever. Had the respondent filed
the suit within the period of limitation i.e. within three years from the date
when he was given a fresh appointment on 22.11.1967, possibly the Government
could have placed on record an order whereby service of the respondent had been
terminated. The respondent, after having additional qualification approached
the concerned authority in the month of November, 1967 with a request for fresh
appointment and therefore, by virtue of an order dated 22.11. 1967 he was given
a fresh appointment as a librarian. In fact there was no question of losing his
seniority because he was given a fresh appointment by virtue of the order dated
22.11. 1967.
12.
The respondent did not make any representation
or grievance when he was given a fresh appointment. He knew it well that his
service had been terminated and he was obliged by the appellant authorities by
giving him a fresh appointment. Had he been aggrieved by a fresh appointment
after termination of his service, he should have taken legal action at that
time but he accepted the fresh appointment and raised the grievance about his
seniority and other things after more than a decade.
13.
Even after the draft seniority list was
published on 11.11.1972, which had been finalized in September, 1975, he did
not file any suit but continued to make representations which had been rejected
throughout.
14.
It is a settled legal position that the period
of limitation would commence from the date on which the cause of action takes
place. Had there been any statute giving right of appeal to the respondent and
if the respondent had filed such a statutory appeal, the period of limitation
would have commenced from the date when the statutory appeal was decided. In
the instant case, there was no provision with regard to any statutory appeal.
The respondent kept on making representations one after another and all the
representations had been rejected. Submission of the respondent to the effect
that the period of limitation would commence from the date on which his last
representation was rejected cannot be accepted. If accepted, it would be
nothing but travesty of the law of limitation.
One can go on making representations for 25 years and in that event one cannot
say that the period of limitation would commence when the last representation
was decided. On this legal issue, we feel that the courts below committed an error
by considering the date of rejection of the last representation as the date on
which the cause of action had arisen. This could not have been done.
15.
We, therefore, quash and set aside the order
of the High Court confirming the orders passed by the trial court as well as
the first appellate court. As a result thereof, the suit stands dismissed. The
appeal is allowed with no orders as to costs.
………………………….J.
(ANIL
R. DAVE)
………………………….J.
(VIKRAMAJIT
SEN)
New Delhi;
April 21, 2014.
No comments:
Post a Comment