The Supreme Court has ruled that a time-barred service dispute cannot be revived simply by filing a delayed representation. The judgment came in the case of The Chief Executive Officer & Others vs. S. Lalitha & Others, concerning a Doordarshan employee’s claim for financial benefits under the old ACP Scheme.
The respondent had joined service in 1985 and was granted benefits under the MACP Scheme in 2010 and 2015 without protest. However, in 2016, she filed a representation seeking benefits under the older ACP Scheme, claiming entitlement to higher grade pay. This representation was rejected swiftly by the department.
The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and the Karnataka High Court ruled in her favor, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court.
Read Also:- SC Clears HDFC Bank Officer of Criminal Charges in Tamil Nadu Property Auction Case
The Supreme Court observed:
“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 so as to render the O.A. as filed within time.”
The Court emphasized that even if no formal order exists, the limitation period cannot be extended indefinitely by filing a late representation. The correct legal position, it held, is that if a grievance arises without a formal order, a representation must be made promptly. If no reply comes within six months, a tribunal application must follow within one year of that.
The bench, comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Rajesh Bindal, clarified:
“The cause of action cannot be deferred by making a highly belated representation and awaiting its outcome.”
Read Also:- Limitation For Suit Seeking Cancellation Of Deed Is 3 Years If Cancellation Is Main Relief: Supreme Court
The Court further explained that the CAT had erred by not examining the maintainability of the application due to limitation, and the High Court failed to correct this mistake. It held that the representation was non-statutory and hence could not reset the limitation period.
However, considering the respondent’s retirement in 2018 and her financial needs, the Court used its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to protect her from having to repay the benefits already received:
“During the winter years of her life, financial support will become essential to ensure that she can live a life of dignity and purpose.”
Thus, while recognizing the claim as time-barred, the Court allowed the financial benefits to remain due to humanitarian considerations.
Case Title: THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER & OTHERS VS. S. LALITHA & OTHERS
Appearances:
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sahil Bhalaik, AOR Mr. Tushar Giri, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Anil Khanna, Adv. Mr. Ritik Arora, Adv. Mr. Shivam Mishra, Adv. Ms. Gulshan Jahan, Adv. Mr. Murshlin Ansari, Adv. Mr. Sewa Singh, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. S N Bhat, Sr. Adv. Mr. D P Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Tarun Kumar Thakur, Adv. Mrs. Parvati Bhat, Adv. Mr. Abhay Choudhary M, Adv. Mr. Vivek Ram R, Adv. Ms. Anuradha Mutatkar, AOR
