Union of India and Anr. v. Neeta Mishra

1. In spite of service, none has been appearing for the respondent. The respondent is, therefore, proceeded ex-parte.

2. This petition has been filed by the petitioners, challenging the Order dated 13.09.2022 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 730/2017, titled Neeta Mishra v. Union of India and Anr., whereby the learned Tribunal disposed of the O.A. filed by the respondent herein with a direction to the petitioners to supply copies of the ACRs for the period 1987-1988 to 1992-1993 to the respondent. It was further directed that upon receipt of the copies of the ACRs, the respondent shall be at liberty to make a representation to the competent authority, which shall be obliged to take a decision on the said representation within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt thereof.

3. The respondent had filed the above O.A. stating therein that she had joined the petitioners as JIO-I/G on 20.03.1987. In the year 1993, she was not promoted along with the 1986 batch officers, whereafter she submitted a representation dated 27.09.1994. In response to the said representation, the petitioners stated that her seniority had been reassigned at Serial No. 196 (a) on 30.03.1995, but no reasons were given for not granting her promotion. The respondent claimed that it was only on 08.06.2016 that she came to know that her relegation in seniority was on account of her late joining due to maternity reasons, and that she had not been promoted because of her uncommunicated ACRs, which were adverse and below benchmark. She, therefore, submitted representations on 08.06.2016 and 25.07.2016. The respondent was thereafter informed by a letter dated 28.10.2016, that the DPC had considered the ACRs for the period 1987-1988 to 1992-1993, and that there was no provision at that relevant time for communicating below-average ACRs. The respondent again submitted a representation dated 30.11.2016, which was rejected by a Letter/Order dated 28.12.2016 issued by the petitioners. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent approached the learned Tribunal by way of the above O.A..

4. The learned Tribunal, without going into the merits of the O.A. and without even considering the delay on the part of the respondent in approaching the learned Tribunal, allowed the O.A., directing the petitioners to supply the ACRs for the period 1987-1988 to 1992-1993 to the respondent, and further permitted the respondent to make a representation thereon, which the petitioners were directed to consider. We may quote from the Impugned Order as under:

5. In our view, the learned Tribunal ought to have first considered the question of limitation. In terms of Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, an O.A. can be filed only within a period of one year from the date on which the cause of action arises.

6. In the present case, the cause of action, even as per the O.A., arose when the respondent was overlooked for promotion on the basis of her ACRs in the year 1993. The respondent made a few representations in the year 1994-1995, which were responded to by the petitioners; the last being by communication dated 30.03.1995. Thereafter, the respondent approached the petitioners only in the year 2016, that is, after a delay of almost 21 years. The learned Tribunal failed to consider the issue of limitation in the Impugned Order and whether it would get extended only because the petitioners replied to these renewed representations.

7. The Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. M.K. Sarkar, (2010) 2 SCC 59, has deprecated the practice of the learned Tribunal in issuing, what may appear to be innocuous, directions permitting the applicant to make a representation, without appreciating that such directions cannot extend the period of limitation or revive matters which are otherwise long dead. The relevant extract from the said judgment reads as under:

8. In view of the above, the Impugned Order cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. However, since the question of limitation has not been considered by the learned Tribunal, we remand the matter back to the learned Tribunal for a fresh consideration of the said issue before proceeding further on the merits of the O.A.

9. The O.A. is restored to its original number before the learned Tribunal.

10. The parties shall appear before the learned Tribunal on 14.10.2025. As none is appearing before us for the respondent, in case appears for the respondent even before the learned Tribunal, the learned Tribunal may proceed with the consideration of the OA in absence of the respondent or take such other steps as may be deemed fit and proper by the learned Tribunal.

11. The learned Tribunal shall first consider the issue of limitation, and only if it finds the O.A. to be within the prescribed period of limitation, shall it proceed to consider the claim of the respondent on merit.

12. The petition and the pending application stand disposed of in above terms.

13. There shall be no order as to costs.