Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1322 OF 2007

STATE OF TRIPURA & ORS.             …APPELLANTS

        VERSUS

ARABINDA CHAKRABORTY & ORS.      ....RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

ANIL R. DAVE, J.

1. Being aggrieved by the judgment delivered in RSA No. 20 of  

1998 by the High Court of Gauhati at Agartala on 17th March,  

2006, the State of Tripura and others-employers of respondent  

no.1  have filed this appeal.

1

Page 2

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in a nutshell are as  

under:

Respondent No. 1 had been appointed as a librarian by the  

Directorate  of  Education,  Government  of  Tripura  by  an  order  

dated  04.09.1964 and  he  had  joined  his  duties  at  Birchandra  

Public Library, Agartala on 12.09.1964.  

While in service, he was sent to Banaras Hindu University,  

Varanasi to undergo further education and to get qualification of  

Bachelor of Library Science during the academic  year 1965-66.  

After  completion  of  his  studies,  he  had  resumed  his  duties  on  

27.07.1966.   Thereafter,  the  respondent-employee had  remained  

absent without any intimation or sanctioned leave for about one  

year i.e.  from 01.08.1966  to 20.09.  1967.    During his  absence  

from service, by letter dated 13.08.1966, the respondent had been  

called upon to report at the place of his duty within seven days,  

failing which his service was to be terminated.  Inspite of the said  

notice dated 13.08.1966, the respondent did not report at the place  

of his work and therefore, a Memorandum dated 14.11.1966 had  

2

Page 3

been  issued  to  the  respondent  calling  upon  him  to  resume  his  

duties,  but  as  the  respondent  had  not  resumed  his  duties,  his  

services  had  been  terminated.  It  was  learnt  subsequently  that  

during the period when he had remained unauthorisedly absent, he  

had undergone further studies and had attained degree of Masters  

in Library Science and  after attaining the said qualification,  he  

had once again approached the concerned authorities for his re-

appointment.  Looking at the fact that the respondent had become  

better qualified,   he was given a fresh appointment  by an order  

dated  22.11.1967  on  purely temporary  basis  as  a  librarian  and  

again  he  was  posted  at  Birchandra  Public  Library,  Agartala,  

Tripura.   

Though the respondent knew it well that by virtue of an order  

dated  22.11.1967,  he  was  given  a  fresh  appointment  on  purely  

temporary basis as a librarian and he had lost his earlier seniority,  

he made a representation for his seniority in service from the day  

on which he was  initially appointed as a librarian in 1964.  The  

representation  made  by  the  respondent  was  rejected  on  

3

Page 4

31.08.1973.  It is also pertinent to note that a draft seniority list of  

Librarians  was published on 11.11.1972  and thereafter,  the said  

draft list was finalized and the final seniority list was published on  

24.09.1975.   In the said  seniority list  it  was clearly shown that  

service  of  the  respondent  had  commenced  from  22.11.1967  in  

pursuance of his fresh appointment.

Inspite of the aforestated  fact,  the respondent  continued to  

make  representations  and  all  his  representations  were  rejected.  

Ultimately  the  respondent  filed  Title  Suit  No.  175  of  1979  on  

19.09.1979 in the Court of Munsif, Sadar, West Tripura, praying  

for  the  aforestated  reliefs.   In the  said  suit,  the  respondent  had  

referred to all the representations made by him and had also stated  

that  reply to his last representation was given on 15.1.1979 and  

therefore, the suit was filed within the period of limitation.

In the written statement, the employer-appellant had taken a  

specific  stand  with  regard  to  limitation  to  the  effect  that  the  

respondent had filed the suit after more than 13 years because he  

had  joined  his  service  in  September,  1967  and  he  wanted,  by  

4

Page 5

virtue of the prayer in the suit, that he should be deemed to have  

been appointed with effect from 12.08.1964  

The  suit  was  decreed  in  favour  of  the  respondent  and  

therefore, the appellant employer filed Title Appeal No. 28 of 1985  

against the judgment dated 18.04.1985 delivered by the trial court.  

The  judgment  delivered  by  the  trial  court  was  upheld  by  the  

appellate court and therefore, second appeal was filed before the  

High Court which was also dismissed by virtue of the impugned  

judgment.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant- employer had  

submitted  that  the courts  below had committed  a mistake by  

believing that the suit was filed within the period of limitation.  

The trial  court  had  expressed  its  view to  the  effect  that  the  

period  of  limitation  would  start  from the  date  on which  last  

representation made by the respondent was decided.  Therefore,  

the  suit  was  treated  to  have  been  filed  within  the  period  of  

limitation  and  the  said  view  was  confirmed  by  both  the  

appellate courts.   

5

Page 6

4. The learned counsel for the appellant had further submitted that  

on facts also, the courts below committed a mistake because the  

respondent  had  been  given  a  fresh  appointment  by an  order  

dated  22.11.1967.   Initial  appointment  made  in  1964  had  

already been terminated as the respondent had remained absent  

without sanctioned leave.  He had further submitted that upon  

perusal of the appointment order dated 22.11.1967, it is clear  

that  the respondent  had been given a fresh appointment  as a  

librarian  on  temporary  basis  because  his  earlier  appointment  

had already come to an end.

5. It  had  been  further  submitted  that  the  respondent  wanted  

continuity of service with effect  from 12.08.1964  though  his  

service had already been terminated as he had remained absent  

unauthorisedly.   In the circumstances,  the respondent  had no  

right to have continuity of service.  He had further submitted  

that the respondent ought to have filed suit within 3 years from  

the  date  of  order  giving  him  fresh  appointment  if  he  was  

aggrieved by the said order.

6

Page 7

6. Alternatively, it had been submitted that the draft seniority list  

of  Librarians  had  been  published  on  11.11.1972  which  had  

been finalized on 24.09.1975 and the said fact was known to  

the respondent.  The respondent was made aware of the fact that  

he was appointed with effect from 22.11. 1967 and in that event  

the period of limitation would start from 11.11.1972 when the  

draft seniority list was published or at the most with effect from  

24.09.1975 when the draft seniority list was finally published.  

Instead  of  approaching  the  court,  the  respondent  kept  on  

making several representations which had been rejected.   His  

representation  had  been  rejected  on  19.07.1976.  Even  after  

rejection  of  his  representation  on  19.07.1976  he  had  made  

another  representation  on  16.02.1978  to  the  Director  of  

Education, Tripura which had also been rejected on 03.06.1978.   

Thereafter,  he made another  representation to the Director of  

Education, which had also been rejected on 15.01.1979.

7. Looking  at  the  above  facts,   it  had  been  submitted  by  the  

learned counsel appearing for the appellants that  the title suit  

7

Page 8

ought  to  have  been  dismissed  on  the  ground  of  limitation,  

however,  not  only  the  suit  had  been  decreed  but  the  courts  

below had also confirmed the judgment delivered by the trial  

court.  He had further submitted that the appeal deserved to be  

allowed with costs.

8. On  the  other  hand,  the  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  

respondent-employee  had  tried  to  support  the  judgments  

delivered  by  the  High  Court  and  the  trial  court.   He  had  

submitted that the period of limitation would start with effect  

from the date on which his representation was finally rejected  

by his employer and as the suit had been filed on 19.09.1979,  

the suit was filed within the period of limitation.   

9. As the respondent had attained degree of Masters in Library  

Science and he was taken back in service, his services were rightly  

ordered to be continued by the trial court and the High Court had  

rightly  confirmed  the  judgment  and  decree  passed  by  the  first  

appellate court.  He had, therefore, submitted that the appeal filed  

in this Court deserved to be dismissed.

8

Page 9

9. We had heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and  

had also carefully gone through the relevant material pertaining  

to  appointment  orders  and  the  representations  made  by  the  

respondent.

10. In our opinion, the suit was hopelessly barred by  

law of limitation.   Simply by making  a  representation,  when  

there is  no statutory provision or there is  no statutory appeal  

provided, the period of limitation would not get extended.  The  

law does not permit extension of period of limitation by mere  

filing  of  a  representation.   A  person  may  go  on  making  

representations  for  years  and  in  such  an  event  the  period  of  

limitation would not commence from the date on which the last  

representation is decided. In the instant case, it is a fact that the  

respondent was given a fresh appointment order on 22.11.1967,  

which is on record.  The said appointment order gave a fresh  

appointment  to  the respondent  and  therefore,  there could  not  

have been any question with regard to continuity of service with  

effect  from  the  first  employment  of  the  respondent.   It  is  

9

Page 10

pertinent  to  note  that  service  of  the  respondent  had  been  

terminated  because  of  his  unauthorised  absence.   It  was  

unfortunate  that  the  suit  had  been  filed  after  13  years  and  

therefore,  the  relevant  record  pertaining  to  the  order  of  

termination of the respondent had been destroyed or could not  

be traced but in such an event, no harm should be caused to the  

appellant-employer  because  the  appellant-employer  was  not  

supposed to keep the record pertaining to the order terminating  

service of the respondent forever.  Had the respondent filed the  

suit within the period of limitation i.e. within three years from  

the date when he was given a fresh appointment on 22.11.1967,  

possibly the Government could have placed on record an order  

whereby service of the respondent had been terminated.   The  

respondent, after having additional qualification approached the  

concerned authority in  the month  of November,  1967  with  a  

request  for  fresh  appointment  and  therefore,  by  virtue  of  an  

order dated 22.11. 1967 he was given a fresh appointment as a  

librarian.   In fact there was no question of losing his seniority  

10

Page 11

because he was given a fresh appointment by virtue of the order  

dated 22.11. 1967.

11. The respondent did not make any representation  

or grievance when he was given a fresh appointment.  He knew  

it well that his service had been terminated and he was obliged  

by the appellant authorities by giving him a fresh appointment.  

Had he been aggrieved by a fresh appointment after termination  

of his service, he should have taken legal action at that time but  

he  accepted  the  fresh  appointment  and  raised  the  grievance  

about his seniority and other things after more than a decade.

12. Even after the draft  seniority list  was published  

on 11.11.1972, which had been finalized in September, 1975,  

he did not file any suit but continued to make representations  

which had been rejected throughout.

13. It  is  a  settled  legal  position  that  the   period  of  

limitation would commence from the date on which the cause  

of action takes place.  Had there been any statute giving right of  

appeal to the respondent and if the respondent had filed such a  

11

Page 12

statutory  appeal,  the  period  of  limitation  would  have  

commenced  from  the  date  when  the  statutory  appeal  was  

decided.  In the instant case, there was no provision with regard  

to  any  statutory  appeal.   The  respondent  kept  on  making  

representations one after another and all the representations had  

been rejected.  Submission of the respondent to the effect that  

the  period  of  limitation  would  commence  from  the  date  on  

which his last representation was rejected cannot be accepted.  

If  accepted,  it  would  be  nothing  but  travesty  of  the  law of  

limitation.  One can go on making representations for 25 years  

and in that  event one cannot say that  the period of limitation  

would commence when the last representation was decided.  On  

this  legal  issue,  we feel  that  the  courts  below committed  an  

error  by  considering  the  date  of  rejection  of  the  last  

representation  as  the  date  on  which  the  cause  of  action  had  

arisen.  This could not have been done.

14. We, therefore, quash and set aside the order of the  

High Court confirming the orders passed by the trial court as  

12

Page 13

well as the first  appellate court.   As a result thereof,  the suit  

stands dismissed.  The appeal is allowed with no orders as to  

costs.   

………………………….J. (ANIL R. DAVE)    

………………………….J. (VIKRAMAJIT SEN)    

New Delhi; April  21, 2014.                         

13