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.
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.
Dated;April 21, 2014.
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 17 th 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 re-
appointment. 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.
9. 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.
10.
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.
11.
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.
12.
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.
13.
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.
14.
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