1996 (9) TMI 603 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the power of the Tribunal to condone delay in filing applications under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and the requirement for satisfactory explanation for delay in invoking the jurisdiction of the Court for redressal of grievances.

Power of Tribunal to Condone Delay:
The appeals arose from a common order of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, where the respondents, teachers in the Department of Education, had availed Leave Travel Concession in 1981-82 but later it was found that they had not utilized the benefit but drew the amount. The Tribunal allowed similar claims in August 1989 and condoned the delay in filing applications. The appellant contended that the Tribunal had no power to condone the delay if the applications were filed beyond the specified period under Section 21 of the Act. However, the Court held that under Section 21(3), the Tribunal has the power to condone delay if the applicants provide a sufficient cause for not filing the application within the specified period.

Interpretation of Section 21:
Section 21 of the Act provides for limitation for redressal of grievances, specifying periods for filing applications. Subsection (3) allows for condonation of delay if the applicants provide a satisfactory explanation for not filing within the specified periods under subsections (1) and (2). The Court clarified that applicants need not explain the delay within the specified periods but must provide an explanation for any delay occurring after the expiry of those periods.

Application of Precedent:
The Court distinguished the present case from a previous judgment concerning the exclusion of a total period of six months in filing a petition, stating that the question of condoning delay after the expiry of the specified periods in Section 21 did not arise in that case. The Court emphasized that in the current case, the respondents failed to provide a proper explanation for the delay that occurred after the expiry of the relevant periods, rendering the Tribunal's decision to condone the delay unjustified.

Conclusion:
The Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the Tribunal's order and emphasizing that while no explanation is required for delays within the specified periods under Section 21, a satisfactory explanation is necessary for any delay occurring after the expiry of those periods. No costs were awarded in the matter.