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.