Sri. Rahul C.S. vs The Union Of India & Ors.

14.

Exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in court without jurisdiction.- (1) In computing the period of limitation for any suit the time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a court of first instance or of appeal or revision, against the defendant shall be excluded, where the proceeding relates to the same matter in issue and is prosecuted in good faith in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it. (2) In computing the period of limitation for any application, the time during which the applicant has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a court of first instance or of appeal or revision, against the same party for the same relief shall be excluded, where such proceeding is prosecuted in good faith in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it. ……………………….”

“……

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has challenged the order rejecting his application for appointment on compassionate grounds and for a direction to the respondents to appoint him on compassionate grounds.

2.

It appears that the father of the petitioner was an employee of respondent No.1, working at respondent No.2. Therefore, the petitioner was bound to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal, challenging the impugned order.

3.

In that view of the matter, this petition is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order before the tribunal.

4.

The office is directed to return the impugned order to the learned counsel for the petitioner after retaining a photocopy.

5.

It is needless to mention that the time consumed in pursuing this petition shall be deducted while calculating the limitation applicable to a proceeding before the tribunal.”

“21 Limitation - (1) A Tribunal shall not admit an application, -

(a)

in a case where a final order such as is mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 20 has been made in connection with the grievance unless the application is made, within one year from the date on which such final order has been made;

“……………….

26…….. While considering the plea for condonation of delay, the court must not start with the merits of the main matter. The court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. It is only if the sufficient cause assigned by the litigant and the opposition of the other side is equally balanced that the court may bring into aid the merits of the matter for the purpose of condoning the delay.

27.

We are of the view that the question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration. The rules of limitation are based on the principles of sound public policy and principles of equity. We should not keep the 'Sword of Damocles' hanging over the head of the respondent for indefinite period of time to be determined at the whims and fancies of the appellants.

28………

“13.

It is no doubt true that while considering the application for condonation of delay, the expression 'sufficient cause' has to be liberally construed. It, however, does not mean that without making any sufficient cause, the Court will condone the delay regardless of the length of the delay……… ……………

31.

In the case of Lanka Venkateswarlu (D) by LRs v. State of Andhra Pradesh & others, (2011) 4 SCC 363, this Court made the following observations:

"20.

In N. Balakrishnan, [(1998) 7 SCC 123] this Court again reiterated the principle that: (SCC p. 127, para 11)

"11.

Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that [the] parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly." …………..

32.

In the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) by LRs. v. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project, (2008) 17 SCC 448, this Court held as follows:

"19.

In Ajit Singh Thakur Singh v. State of Gujarat ((1981) 1 SCC 495: 1981 SCC (Cri) 184] this Court observed: (SCC p. 497, para 6)

"6.

... it is true that a party is entitled to wait until the last day of limitation for filing an appeal. But when it allows limitation to expire and pleads sufficient cause for not filing the appeal earlier, the sufficient cause must establish that because of some event or circumstance arising before limitation expired it was not possible to file the appeal within time. No event or circumstance arising after the expiry of limitation can constitute sufficient cause." (emphasis supplied)

This judgment squarely applies to the facts in hand. xxx xxx xxx

21………Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. The decision does not lay down that a lethargic litigant can leisurely choose his own time in preferring appeal or application as the case may be. On the other hand, in the said judgment it is said that court should not forget the opposite party altogether. It was observed: (SCC p. 128, para 11)

"11.

... It is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time."

22.

In Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. [AIR 1962 SC 361] this Court held that: (AIR pp. 363-65)

"……….. It is further necessary to emphasise that even if the sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a condition precedent for the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction vested in the court by Section 5. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage the diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration." (emphasis supplied)

23.

On the facts and in the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the respondent beneficiary was not diligent in availing the remedy of appeal. The averments made in the application seeking condonation of delay in filing appeals do not show any acceptable cause much less sufficient cause to exercise courts' discretion in its favour." …………………….”

“…………………….

7……We have also noted that the instant RA is badly barred by limitation as the RA should have been filed within 30 days of the Tribunal's order dated 01.08.2023 i.e., by 01.09.2023. Now, the applicant has approached the Court in 2025, the inordinate delay cannot be condoned in terms of the maxim-'vigilantibus, non dormentibus Jura Sub Veniuant, (Law assists those who are vigilant; not those who are dormant/indolent) and the ratio given in the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1941 of 2014-Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and Others vs. T. T. Murali Babu (2014) 4 SCC 108 decided on 10.02.2014 :-

"16.

Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable Jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the court would be under legal obligation to scrutinise whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, "procrastination is the greatest thief of time and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix, Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis. ………………….”

“………………………….

4.2

…………….

The Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically ruled that stale claim cannot be gone into by this Hon'ble Tribunal. This settled position is already accepted by this Hon'ble Tribunal in its judgement and order dated 12th December, 2006 in O.A.No.92 of 2006 Kaushal Kishore V/S Union of India & others. Moreover, Full Bench of this Hon'ble Tribunal has also ruled that preliminary objection with regard to jurisdiction and limitation has to be decided first. The Respondents also relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arun Agarwal v/s Nagreeka Exports reported in (2002) 10 SCC 101. ………

vii) Esha Bhattacharjee Vs Management Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, 2014 (1) SLJ (SC) 20. For quick reference, relevant portion is under:

".....22. The law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and wasted time would never revisit. During the efflux of time, newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So, a lifespan must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time. We have painfully re-stated the same. 23. Ex consequenti, the appeals are allowed and the order passed by the Division Bench condoning delay is set aside……..” ……………”