Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
JAI DEV GUPTA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/09/1997
BENCH:
K. VENKATASWAMI, V. N. KHARE
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
Present:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Venkataswami
Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.N. Khare
Hardev Singh, Sr. Adv., Ms. Madhu Moolchandani, Adv. with
him for the appellant
Rajiv Nanda and T. Sridharan, Advs. for the Respondents
The following Order of the Court was delivered:
O R D E R
K. Venkataswami, j.
The appellant approached the central Administrative
Tribunal for the relief that he is entitled to the pay-scale
of Lecturer in Commercial arts though he was appointed to
the post of ’Studio Artist’. In addition to that he claimed
the difference in the salary from the year 1971. He
approached the Tribunal for this relief in May. 1989. The
Tribunal accepted the claim of the appellant that he should
be paid the salary of Lecturer in Commercial Arts though he
was appointed to the post of ’Studio Artist’ in View of the
fact that he was performing the duties of Lecturer in
Commercial Arts. However, the Tribunal granted the relief of
difference in backwages from May, 1988 only on the ground
that under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act
the period of one year is prescribed for redressal of
grievances. Against the decision of the Tribunal that the
appellant is entitled to be paid the salary of Lecturer in
Commercial Arts though he was appointed as ’Studio Artist’
the respondents have not filed any appeal. The appellant has
preferred this appeal claiming the difference in backwages
from the date of his posting as Lecturer in Commercial Arts.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted
that before approaching the Tribunal the appellant was
making number of representations to the appropriate
authorities claiming the relief and that was the reason for
not approaching the Tribunal earlier than May, 1989. We do
not think that such an excuse can be advanced to claim the
difference in backwages from the year 1971. In Administrator
of Union Territory of Daman and Diu & Ors. Vs. R.D. Valand
1995 Supp(4) SCC 593 this court while setting aside an order
of Central Administrative Tribunal has observed that the
Tribunal was not justified in putting the clock back by more
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
than 15 years and the Tribunal fell into patent error in
brushing aside the question of limitation by observing that
the respondent has been making representations from time to
time and as such the limitation would not come in his way.
In the light of the above decision, we cannot entertain the
arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that the
difference in backwages should be paid right from the year
1971. At the same time we do not think that the Tribunal was
right in invoking section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals
Act for restricting the difference by backwages by one year.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold
that the appellant is entitled to get the difference in
backwages from May, 1986. The appeal is disposed of
accordingly with no order as to costs.