Chief Executive Officer v. S. Lalitha

April 24, 2025

2025 INSC 565
Supreme Court of India
Judges: *Dipankar Datta, J., Rajesh Bindal, J.
Civil Appeal No. /2025 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 6289/2019)
Decided on: April 24, 2025
The Chief Executive Officer & Others v. S. Lalitha & Others

Table of Contents

Issues

Limitation under Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 – Whether the Original Application (O.A.) filed by the respondent before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) was time-barred under Sections 20 and 21.
Maintainability of Belated Representations – Whether a non-statutory, belated representation can extend the limitation period for filing an O.A. challenging financial upgradations under the Assured Career Progression (ACP) and Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Schemes.
Judicial Precedents on Delay and Laches – Applicability of decisions such as C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining and Union of India v. M.K. Sarkar to service disputes involving stale claims.
Exercise of Article 142 Powers – Whether the Court can refrain from ordering recovery of financial benefits paid to a retired employee despite ruling the O.A. as time-barred.

Facts

The respondent, a Library & Information Assistant at Doordarshan Kendra, Bangalore, received financial upgradations under the ACP Scheme (1999) and MACP Scheme (2009).
She challenged the grant of second and third financial upgradations under the MACP Scheme via a representation in 2016, seeking benefits under the ACP Scheme, which was rejected.
The CAT allowed her O.A. in 2017, upheld by the Karnataka High Court in 2018, relying on B.D. Kadam v. Union of India.
The appellants contended that the O.A. was time-barred and cited subsequent judicial developments, including Union of India v. N.M. Raut.

Held

Limitation and Maintainability:
- The O.A. was time-barred under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, as the respondent’s representation in 2016, made seven years after the second financial upgradation (2009) and one year after the third (2015), was non-statutory and could not defer the cause of action.
- Relying on C. Jacob, M.K. Sarkar, and other precedents, the Court held that belated representations raising stale claims do not extend limitation periods. The cause of action arises when the right is affected, not upon rejection of a delayed representation.
- The CAT and High Court erred by not addressing the maintainability objection, focusing solely on B.D. Kadam without examining limitation.
Statutory vs. Non-Statutory Remedies:
- Section 20 of the 1985 Act requires exhaustion of statutory remedies under service rules. Non-statutory representations do not extend limitation unless exceptional circumstances exist.
- In cases of inaction by the employer (e.g., failure to grant due benefits), a representation is necessary but must be made expeditiously to avoid being deemed a stale claim.
Distinction from N.M. Raut:
- The decision in Union of India v. N.M. Raut (2024) was distinguished, as it involved employees receiving non-functional upgradations, unlike the respondent who claimed delayed ACP benefits affected by the MACP Scheme’s introduction.
Exercise of Article 142:
- Despite ruling the O.A. time-barred, the Court exercised its powers under Article 142, considering the respondent’s retirement in 2018 and her need for financial support in old age, as guided by Articles 15(3) and 41 of the Constitution.
- No recovery of surplus benefits paid to the respondent was ordered, treating the case as exceptional.

Disposition

The appeal was disposed of without interfering with the impugned order, but the Court clarified that the O.A. was time-barred and should not have been entertained by the CAT or upheld by the High Court.
No refund of financial benefits was directed due to the respondent’s retirement and constitutional considerations.

Precedents

C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining, (2008) 10 SCC 115
Union of India v. M.K. Sarkar, (2010) 2 SCC 59
State of Uttaranchal v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari, (2013) 12 SCC 179
Union of India v. Chaman Rana, (2018) 5 SCC 798
S.S. Rathore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1989) 4 SCC 582
Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648

Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, Article 142, Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme, Belated Representation, Cause of action, Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Constitutional Provisions (Articles 15(3), Delay and Laches, Financial Upgradation, Limitation, Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme, Non-Statutory Representation, Original Application (O.A.), Public Servant, Retirement Benefits, Service Disputes, Stale Claims, Statutory Remedies, Time-barred

Law Note: Kerala Micro Distillery Rules, 2025May 17, 2025
The Kerala Micro Distillery Rules, 2025, notified under G.O. (P) No. 87/2025/Taxes and S.R.O. No. 574/2025, were enacted by the Government of Kerala on April 29, 2025, under the authority of Section 29 of the Abkari Act, I of 1077.
Law Note: Interrogatories under Order XI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) – Insights from 2025 KER 33579May 17, 2025
Interrogatories under Order XI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), allow a party to a suit to obtain information from their opponent through written questions to support their case, streamline trial proceedings, or reduce litigation costs.
Ground Handling Association v. Union of IndiaMay 16, 2025
Whether CIAL is an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution, making it amenable to writ jurisdiction.
Bar Council of India Rules for Registration and Regulation of Foreign Lawyers and Foreign Law Firms in India, 2022May 15, 2025
The Bar Council of India Rules for Registration and Regulation of Foreign Lawyers and Foreign Law Firms in India, 2022 (amended in 2025) represent a significant step toward integrating India’s legal profession with global legal practices while safeguarding the unique characteristics of the Indian legal system.
Prajida Kumari K. v. State of KeralaMay 13, 2025
Kerala Education Rules (KER), Chapter XIVA, Rule 51A – Preferential Claim for Appointment – Scope and Applicability.
Dr. Manu v. Sree Sankaracharya University of SanskritMay 13, 2025
The petitioner, a Professor and Head of the Department (Hindi) at the Central University of Kerala, sought to set aside orders denying his placement as Professor with effect from 01.06.2009 and requested revision of his placement under the 5th UGC Scheme.
Muhammed Thaha v. Director of Collegiate EducationMay 13, 2025
Appointment of Principal – Approval by University – Right to Information Act, 2005 – Negligence Allegation.
Dr. Sangeetha S. v. State of KeralaMay 13, 2025
Inter-University Transfer – Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985, Section 68A
Dr. Muhammed Thaha v. Director of Collegiate EducationMay 13, 2025
Right to Information Act, 2005 – Section 7 – Public Information Officer – Duty and Liability – Approval of Appointment – Negligence Allegation.
Constitutional Validity of Section 498A – Insights from Janshruti (People’s Voice) v. Union of India, 2025 INSC 536May 11, 2025
In Janshruti (People’s Voice) v. Union of India & Ors., the Supreme Court addressed a challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 498A, IPC, which criminalizes cruelty by husbands or their relatives against married women, particularly in dowry-related cases.