H.J. Chaudari and Others vs Director of Agriculture and Others

A.L. Dave, J.—The petitioners are aggrieved by the order by Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal in Appeals No. 561, 562 and 563 of 1981, rendered on 15th December, 1992, whereby the appeals came to be dismissed only on the ground of limitation. In the impugned order, the learned Judicial Member discussed the question of limitation at length and expressed an opinion that since the appeals were admitted without any endorsement of ''subject to limitation'', the question of limitation would not come in the way of the appellants. The learned President of the Tribunal, however, took a different view of the matter and concluded that the appeals are time barred and, therefore, dismissed the appeals.

The petitioners'' grievance was that they came to be promoted from the post of Agricultural Assistant to the higher post of Agricultural Supervisor with effect from 1.4.1961. They came to be reverted with effect from 1st February, 1968, after a period of about six years and ten months. According to them, they were reverted by the respondents to facilitate the appointment of Agricultural Supervisors, who were senior to them, on their repatriation from the Panchayat Service to the State Service. The main grievance of the petitioners (appellants before the Tribunal) was that, when they were reverted about 19 persons junior to them, as per the seniority list dated 17.12.1965, were not reverted and continued on the post of Agricultural Supervisor. On the other hand, the case of the respondents was that those 19 persons were continued as Agricultural Supervisors as they belong to the Soil Conservation Section, though the seniority list was common.

It emerges from the order of the Tribunal, particularly, passed by the learned Judicial Member of the Tribunal, that the practice of the Tribunal was that, if the appeal is not directly admitted at the time of presentation by order in the noting portion, it is fixed for pre-hearing and in such pre-hearing, parties are heard on the aspect of limitation, jurisdiction, etc. and, if the questions of such technical aspects of limitation, jurisdiction, etc. are kept pending for being decided at the time of final hearing of the appeal, the orders that the Tribunal would pass would be ''Appeal is admitted subject to limitation or jurisdiction''. However, if the Tribunal is convinced after hearing the parties about the appeal having no technical hitch of limitation or jurisdiction, unconditional order in the nature of ''Appeal is admitted'' is passed. In the instant case, similar order of admission was passed and, therefore, the learned Judicial Member of the Tribunal was of the view that the question of limitation is, now, not required to be gone into.

3.1 However, the learned In-charge President of the Tribunal took a different view of the matter by observing that, at the time of preliminary hearing, presumably, the Tribunal found that, prima facie, the appeals were found to be worth admitting and, hence, they were admitted. It appears that the Tribunal did not consider all aspects of the case at the time of preliminary hearing and the Tribunal may have given a fair chance to the appellants to present the entire case, so that condonation of delay could also be considered if the case so deserved.

Thus, the decision taken by the learned In-charge President is not on any concrete material, but on presumption, whereas the view taken by the learned Judicial Member of the Tribunal is based on past practice of the Tribunal.

In the opinion of this Court, parties approach Tribunals or Courts for justice and it is always desirable that the disputes are adjudicated on their own merits rather than non-suiting the party on technical grounds. The settled proposition of law is that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which empowers Courts to condone delay, is to be liberally applied and interpreted. Similar view can be taken here without going into the question whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act would apply to the case or not. The ultimate endeavour should be to render substantial justice. The Tribunal erred in dismissing the matter on a technical ground of limitation when the view taken by the learned Judicial Member was not an impossible one. The view of the learned Judicial Member was based on past practice and, therefore, this Court is inclined to accept this petition.

The petition is allowed. The judgment and order of the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal dated 15th December, 1992, passed in Appeals No. 561, 562 and 563 of 1981 is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for decision of the dispute on merits. Considering the fact that the petitioners are Senior Citizens and are of an advanced age, it would be reasonable to expect the Tribunal to decide the matter expeditiously, preferably, within six months from the date of receipt of the order. Direction accordingly. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs.