CWP No. 926 of 2007 · Himachal Pradesh High Court

before the said date before any High Court, CWP No. 926 of 2007 The application shall be entertained by the Tribunal if it is made within the period referred in clause (a), or, as the case may be, clause (b), of sub-section (1) or within a period of six months from the said date, whichever period expires later. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), an application may be admitted after the period of one year specified in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) or, as the case may be, the period of six months specified in sub-section (2), if the applicant satisfies the Tribunal that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period. (cid:148) We are unable to accept the reasoning advanced by the learned Tribunal. Limitation could not be reckoned from 1.1.1994. It is but obvious that when the petitioner was aggrieved by the order which was admittedly passed on 4.8.1993 and communicated at a later date that the petitioner approached the Court for the redressal of his grievance.

In this case, it is undisputed that the representation has been made on 21.7.2004 and the petition filed on 22.2.2005, the petition was, therefore, within statutory period of limitation as prescribed by Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The provision governing limitation also provides for relaxation. In particular sub-section (3) of Section 21 vests powers with the Tribunal to entertain petition(s) if it has been filed beyond the period of time prescribed. In this case, the petitioner was working as a daily wager worker and even it is to be assumed that he approached the Court at a later point of time, he could have been given the benefit of sub-section (3). However, without entering into that controversy, we hold that cause of action accrued to the petitioner once the order dated 4.8.2003 was passed and conveyed to him and also when his representation was rejected thereafter.