Subhas Kumar vs State of Jharkhand & Ors

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Applicant challenged the reasoned order dated 22nd April, 2014 passed by the respondents pursuant to the directions contained in O.A. No. 168/2013, in the present O.A No. 051/00102/2017 after a considerable delay beyond the limitation period of 1 year prescribed under the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. Learned Tribunal therefore rejected the application as hopelessly barred by limitation.

Learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner has made efforts to explain that the actual recovery of the amount of Rs. 27,26,151/- under the Head of Commercial Debit total amount of Rs. 34,03,237/- started in the year 2017 only pursuant to letter dated 12th June, 2017. Though the applicant had challenged the order of rejection dated 22nd April, 2014 also, but since the order of recovery was of 12th June, 2017 the application for condonation of delay was not filed. However, learned Tribunal rejected O.A on the ground of limitation alone without getting into the merits of the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the applicant may be granted one opportunity to seek condonation of delay before learned Tribunal by remanding the matter.

Learned counsel for the respondents has defended the impugned order on the ground that the original cause of action related to the year 2014 and was hopelessly barred by limitation. The respondents had duly complied with the direction passed in O.A. No. 168/2013 and disposed of petitioner''s representation by order dated 22nd April, 2014 (Annexure-3 to the petition) which is the foundation for the recovery. There is a huge amount recoverable from the petitioner which is being undertaken from his pension.

Considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and the relevant factual matrix of the case noted above. It appears that on misconceived notion applicant did not seek condonation of delay in preferring the original application before learned Tribunal though the rejection of his representation was made on 22nd April, 2014, also impugned in the original application. Petitioner in his wisdom chose to approach learned Tribunal only when the recovery started, though the foundation of recovery is the rejection order. In such circumstances, the case of the petitioner got dismissed on the point of limitation alone.

However, we are of the view that interest of justice would be served, if the matter is remanded to learned Tribunal to consider the plea of the petitioner on the point of limitation on its merit without being influenced by any observation made by us. Petitioner be allowed to file an application for condonation of delay in moving the learned Tribunal in the same O.A.

We, therefore, refrain from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the instant petition stands allowed.