In Subramaniyan Kanakkan v/s The State of Maharashtra, Through the Principal Secretary, Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries Dept. Mantralaya, Mumbai & Others, the Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal's (MAT) decision to refuse the condonation of delay in filing a case for service benefits. The petitioner, a former government employee, sought the Tribunal’s intervention after his representations regarding Time Bound Promotion were rejected by his employer. The core issue revolved around the Tribunal’s decision to dismiss the petitioner's application for the delay in filing, which exceeded five years.
Background of the Case:
The petitioner, appointed as a Daily Farm Assistant in 1975 at Aarey Milk Colony, Mumbai, was promoted in 1987 to the permanent position of "Field Supervisor." Despite serving in this role for over a decade, the petitioner continued to seek Time Bound Promotion benefits through multiple representations between 1997 and 2015. Upon his retirement in 2010, he continued to press for the promotion benefits, which were ultimately rejected in 2016 due to a qualification issue.
In June 2022, more than five years after the rejection, the petitioner approached the MAT seeking Time Bound Promotion benefits. However, he also filed a Miscellaneous Application for condonation of delay, citing medical issues involving his wife and the disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite these explanations, the Tribunal rejected his plea for delay condonation in April 2023, leading to the present writ petition.
Legal Framework:
Under Section 21(1)(a) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, a petitioner must file a grievance within one year from the date of a final order rejecting their representation. In this case, the petitioner’s representation was rejected in March 2016, making the filing deadline March 2017. However, the petition was only filed in June 2022, surpassing the statutory deadline by more than five years.
Section 21(3) allows for the condonation of delay if the petitioner can demonstrate a "sufficient cause" for not adhering to the one-year limit. The petitioner argued that the delays were caused by his wife’s ongoing medical issues from 2005 onward and the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the MAT dismissed his application, asserting that the petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the significant delay.
Court’s Analysis:
The Bombay High Court examined the legal provisions and the facts presented by the petitioner. The court noted that the petitioner’s delay explanation involved two distinct periods: from March 2017 to March 2020 due to his wife’s illness, and from March 2020 to June 2022 due to the pandemic. However, the court found the explanation lacking credibility, primarily because the petitioner had continued to make representations during the period when his wife was unwell, undermining the claim that her illness was the primary reason for the delay.
Additionally, the court noted that the limitation period had expired three years before the onset of the pandemic, and the Supreme Court's order extending the limitation during the pandemic did not apply to this case. The extension only related to the period for filing, not the time available for condoning the delay.
The petitioner’s reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh was also dismissed. The facts of that case were deemed significantly different, particularly in terms of the nature of the representation and the jurisdiction of the High Court.
Conclusion:
The Bombay High Court ultimately upheld the MAT's decision, emphasizing that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient cause for the prolonged delay in filing the Original Application. The court concluded that the petitioner’s explanation regarding his wife’s illness and the pandemic did not justify the delay, and dismissed the writ petition without costs.
This case highlights the importance of adhering to statutory deadlines and providing concrete evidence when seeking the condonation of delay in legal proceedings. It also clarifies the interpretation of "sufficient cause" under the Administrative Tribunal Act, particularly when explaining delays that stretch beyond the statutory period.
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985
