'State's Right To File Reply Cannot Be Curtailed': HP High Court Sets Aside Tribunal Order Granting Service Benefits

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a State's right to file a reply cannot be curtailed by adjudicatory bodies, setting aside a Tribunal order that granted service benefits without affording the State an opportunity to respond. Emphasising principles of natural justice and procedural fairness, the Division Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin Chander Negi ruled that such a course adopted by the Tribunal was unsustainable in law, particularly where the claim itself appeared to be barred by limitation."It is to be noticed that the learned Tribunal has adopted a methodology, which cut-short the right, as such, of the appellant-State to even file a reply, by dispensing with the same and taking up Original Application for disposal," said the court.The bench pointed the Tribunal stated in the order that, "Heard Notice. Mr. Narender Singh Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. Filing of replies is dispensed with. With the consent of the parties the original application is taken up for disposal at this stage."BackgroundThe dispute arose from an application filed by Geeta Devi before the Tribunal, seeking that two periods—maternity leave from July 1, 1996 to December 31, 1996, and illness from January 1, 1998 to July 31, 1998—be treated as continuous service. The Tribunal had allowed the plea and directed the State to consider her for conferment of work-charge status upon completion of 10 years of service, along with consequential benefits (restricted to three years prior to filing of the application).Tribunal Criticised for Denying Opportunity to RespondThe High Court took serious exception to the procedure adopted by the Tribunal, which had dispensed with the filing of replies and proceeded to decide the matter at the admission stage itself.The Bench observed that such a course of action curtailed the State's right to present its defence. It held that the Tribunal could not “cut-short” the process in a manner that deprived a party of a fair opportunity to respond, especially in a matter involving disputed service claims.Application Held Time-BarredOn merits, the Court found that the original application filed in 2019 pertained to service breaks dating back to 1996 and 1998, making it clearly barred under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.Relying on cases including S.S. Rathore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Bench reiterated that applications must be filed within one year from the date of the final order; Delay can only be condoned within a limited additional period if sufficient cause is shown;Repeated or belated representations do not extend limitation.The Court emphasised that the statute contains a mandatory bar on admission of time-barred applications and is designed to ensure expeditious resolution of service disputes.The Bench declined to remand the matter back to the Tribunal, noting that the claim was “apparently barred on the face of the record.” It further observed that the applicant had already been regularised in 2017 and had not raised any grievance regarding the earlier breaks in service for decades.The Court also noted the absence of any explanation in the original application regarding delay or the subsequent regularisation.Setting aside the Tribunal's order, the High Court dismissed the original application and allowed the State's writ petition.Mr. Sidharth Jalta, Deputy Advocate General.Mr. Ashwani Gupta, Advocate For the respondent(s).Title: The State of HP and Ors v. Greta DeviClick here to read order

'State's Right To File Reply Cannot Be Curtailed': HP High Court Sets Aside Tribunal Order Granting Service Benefits

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags