Limitation in Filing of Cases in Central Administrative Tribunals

20. Application not to be admitted unless other remedies exhausted – (1) A Tribunal shall not ordinarily admit an application unless it is satisfied that the applicant had availed of all the remedies available to him under the relevant service rules as to redressal of grievances.(2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), a person shall be deemed to have availed of all the remedies available to him under the relevant service rules as to redressal of grievances, - (a) if a final order has been made by the Government or other authority or officer or other person competent to pass such order under such rules, rejecting any appeal preferred or representation made by such person in connection with the grievance; or (b) where no final order has been made by the Government or other authority or officer or other person competent to pass such order with regard to the appeal preferred or representation made by such person, if a period of six months from the date on which such appeal was preferred or representation was made has expired. (3) For the purposes of sub-sections (1) and (2), any remedy available to an applicant by way of submission of a memorial to the President or to the Governor of a State or to any other functionary shall not be deemed to be one of the remedies which are available unless the applicant had elected to submit such memorial.


 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;

(b) in a case where an appeal or representation such as is mentioned in clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 20 has been made and a period of six months had expired thereafter without such final order having been made, within one year from the date of expiry of the said period of six months.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where –

(a) the grievance in respect of which an application is made had arisen by reason of any order made at any time during the period of three years immediately preceding the date on which the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunal becomes exercisable under this Act in respect of the matter to which such order relates ; and

(b) no proceedings for the redressal of such grievance had been commenced before the said date before any High Court,


the application shall be entertained by the Tribunal if it is made within the period referred to 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.
Location: Opposite Shivalik View, 17G, Sector 17, Chandigarh, 160017, India

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Provision rent judgement

R.C. Lahoti, J. Late Parmodh Paul, who died during the pendency of the proceedings and whose legal representatives, the appellants before us, have been brought on record, filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restrictions Act, 1949 (hereinafter 'the Act', for short), against the respondent-firm through its two partners on the ground of the tenants having defaulted in payment of rent, a ground for eviction under Clause (i) of sub-Section (2) of Section 13 of the Act. Hereinafter for the sake of convenience and brevity, Late Parmodh Paul shall be referred to as the 'landlord' and the respondents as the 'tenants'. According to the averments made in the petition for eviction filed on 17.9.1991, the suit premises were obtained by the tenants on tenancy from Shri Mani Ram and Smt. Ratan Devi, the then owners and landlords, under the rent note dated 20-9-1982. The rate of rent agreed upon was Rs.2000/- per month excluding
Read more

6 Months waived off in Mutual Divorce Chandigarh

A huge relief has come for people fed up with their divorce battles and thinking of separating mutually and gracefully from a failed marriage which is definitely Mutual Divorce. Even 6 months period has been made discretionary in the hands of District or Session Judge who can strike off this cooling period and grant divorce there and then. In Amardeep Singh vs. Harveen Kaur, SLP (c) 111587 of 2017, SC Judge Adarsh Goel, pronounced this relief. Judgment can be accessed here- http://www.livelaw.in/six-months-waiting-period-in-section-13b2-of-hindu-marriage-act-for-divorce-by-mutual-consent-not-mandatorysc-read-judgment/
Read more

Judicial Review of Court's Decision

The Supreme Court, in Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651 was concerned with the extent of judicial review of decisions bona fide arrived at in tender cases and on a review of case law it was inter alia held that:- (i) there are inherent limitations in exercise of power of judicial review; (ii) judicial review is a great weapon in the hands of the judges; but the judges must observe the constitutional limits set by our parliamentary system upon the exercise of this beneficent power; (iii) the restraint has two contemporary manifestations - one is the ambit of judicial intervention; the other covers the scope of the court's ability to quash an administrative decision on its merits; (iv) these restrains bear the hallmarks of judicial control over administrative action; (v) judicial review is concerned with reviewing not the merits of the decision in support of which the application for judicial review is made, but the decision-making process itself; (vi) unless th
Read more