Time-Barred Service Dispute Can't Be Revived By Making A Belated Representation: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that a time-barred service dispute cannot be brought within the limitation period as per the Administrative Tribunals Act by filing a belated representation.

When a government servant is aggrieved by a denial of a benefit, which is not based on a formal order, then a representation must be filed within a reasonable time. The cause of action to approach the Administrative Tribunal arises when an order is passed on such representation or no order is passed after the lapse of six months from the submission of the representation. 

There may be situations such as denial of promotion or increment, which are not based on formal orders. In such cases, filing of a representation may be necessary, the Court said, even if the service rules do not provide specifically for such a remedy.

The Court explained :

"A representation though not provided in the relevant rules governing service could yet be necessary and imperative when a legitimate service benefit is not conferred on the aggrieved applicant-public servant by the employer on his own either due to inaction or otherwise. In such a case, the representation inviting attention to what the aggrieved applicant-public servant perceives is deprivation of a legitimate benefit has to be made expeditiously and before accrual of third-party rights, if any. Such a representation could be made even after accrual of third-party rights, but within a reasonable time of the same coming to the notice of the aggrieved applicant-public servant. What would constitute reasonable time would necessarily depend on the facts of each particular case and decided accordingly."

The Court further ruled that limitation periods apply regardless of whether a formal order exists. Therefore, even in the absence of an order, delayed claims remain barred. As a result, the Court rejected the employee's belated claim for financial upgradation, finding no entitlement to relief.

"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.”, the court observed.

As per Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 (“1985 Act”), the Tribunal generally does not admit applications unless the applicant has first pursued all remedies available under service rules. However, if no formal order exists to challenge, an employee may approach the Tribunal directly without exhausting alternative remedies. The requirement to exhaust remedies applies only when a formal order is in place, the court said.

Moreover, the Court clarified how a direct challenge can be made before the Tribunal in the absence of a formal order. It held that if no formal order exists, the applicant must first submit a representation to the concerned authority. If no response is received within six months, the applicant may then approach the Tribunal directly provided the application is filed within one year from the expiry of the six-month period.

It is in this context, the Court ruled that when a belated application is filed in the absence of a formal order, then the tribunal need not allow the time-barred claims unless they are filed within one year from the expiry of six months from the date of representation made.

Background

The bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Rajesh Bindal was hearing the case where the Respondent, a Doordarshan employee, sought financial upgradation under the older Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme instead of the MACP Scheme, which replaced the ACP scheme in 2009.

She joined service in 1985 and was granted her second MACP benefit in 2010 (Grade Pay ₹4,800) and third in 2015 (₹5,400). In 2016, she belatedly demanded ACP benefits (₹6,600 and ₹7,600), claiming she was entitled under the old scheme.

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and the Karnataka High Court ruled in her favour.

Following this, an appeal was preferred before the Supreme Court by the concerned authority.

Decision

Noting that the High Court erred in not examining whether the claim filed by the Respondent was time-barred or not, the judgment authored by Justice Datta ruled that a representation filed years after the cause of action arises does not reset the limitation.

Since the Respondent accepted MACP benefits in 2010 and 2015 without protest, her 2016 claim was unreasonably delayed.

“On such premise as explained above, the respondent should have, if she felt aggrieved by the action of the appellants of granting her benefits of financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme instead of the ACP Scheme, availed the remedy before the Tribunal immediately after her rights were affected. She ought not to have waited for so long for ventilating 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 so as to render the O.A. as filed within time.”, the court observed.

Despite holding the claim time-barred, the Court, by invoking its inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, declined to order recovery of excess payments from the Respondent, noting she had retired in 2018.

Case Title: THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER & OTHERS VS. S. LALITHA & OTHERS

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 479

Click here to read/download the judgment

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