Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.17 seconds)V.K. Jain vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 1 November, 1999
6. We have considered the said contentions of the petitioner and regret
our inability to agree with him. The claim made by the petitioner was
clearly barred by limitation and, therefore, he had filed an application
seeking condonation of delay. The judgment of the Tribunal dated 5th
March, 2009 in V.K. Jain's case (supra) would not be a judgment in rem (
See Section 41 of The Evidence Act, 1872). It was a judgment in the said
case and was applicable to a particular employee, though the Tribunal had
interpreted the applicable provisions. The Tribunal had not intended that
this decision would apply to all similarly situated persons, including the
petitioner, whose claim was already barred by limitation. V.K. Jain had
challenged the decision not to pay him servant allowance, shortly after the
said applicant had returned from the foreign assignment and filed the OA
for payment of servant allowance. The question or plea of limitation was not
decided, for the applicant therein was posted abroad till 6th May, 2005 and
his representation was rejected on 26th March, 2008.
State Of U.P.& Ors vs Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors on 17 October, 2014
7. Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1885 prescribes the
period of limitation and in the present case the claim of the petitioner having
been raised nearly ten years from the date of his return was rightly
dismissed. The cause of action had arisen when the petitioner had returned
to India and was not paid servant allowance. The case of Arvind Kumar
Srivastava (supra) would not assist and resque the petitioner for the ratio of
the said case does not hold that the law of limitation does not apply.
Section 41 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 21 in The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
1