IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 375 of 2006 Date of decision: 9.9.2009 Penu Ram Soni …Petitioner Versus State of H.P …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. S.S. Mittal, Sr. Advocate with Shri Surinder P.Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General. Per Deepak Gupta, J. This writ petition is directed against the order of the learned H.P.State Administrative Tribunal dated 22.11.2005 whereby the Original Application filed by the present petitioner was dismissed as being time barred. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner was engaged as Aeromodelling Instructor by the respondent No.3. According to the petitioner, his name was sponsored by the employment exchange after he was interviewed and he was to be appointed against regular post. However, the letter of appointment issued on 11th November, 1980 provided that the petitioner was being appointed on temporary adhoc basis only. The petitioner made a representation against his adhoc appointment firstly on 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 31.1.1981. The Director of Education thereafter wrote to the Secretary (Education) for permission to fill up the post on regular basis but the post was actually never filled up on regular basis. Petitioner made another representation in this behalf on 28th November, 1988. Thereafter, he kept making representations and finally the petition was filed in the year 1993. The relief claimed by the petitioner in the original application was that the respondent be directed to regularize the applicant as Aeromodelling Instructor w.e.f. 8.9.1980 with all consequential benefits of pay fixation, increment, etc. The learned Tribunal held that the cause of action arose in favour of the petitioner in 1980 when he was appointed on regular basis. He made his first representation on 31.1.1981 and thereafter also he was appointed not on regular basis but on adhoc basis. The learned Tribunal went on to hold that the petition was not within limitation. Hence, the present writ petition. We have heard Shri S.S.Mittal, learned Sr. Advocate for the petitioner and Shri Rajesh Mandhotra, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent. Shri Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the petitioner should have been appointed on regular basis right from day one. He further submits that limitation should not come in the way of the petitioner since he was making representations to the Government and the same were not decided. Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act clearly provides that in case an employee makes a representation and the same is not decided the period of limitation of one year will start after six months of the 3 making of the representation. Thus after making a representation an employee has 18 months to file the petition. Admittedly, this petition was filed much beyond the period of 18 months and cannot be said to be within limitation. Repeated representations will not extend the period of limitation. Shri Mittal, learned counsel has argued that in the present case cause of action arose to the petitioner prior to the establishment of the Tribunal and therefore, he is not governed by Section 21 of the Act. We are not in agreement of the same. Section 21 (2) of the Act provides that where the grievance in respect of which an application is made had arisen due to an order passed during the period of three years immediately preceeding the establishment of the Tribunal and no proceedings have been initiated before any other Court, the application can be entertained by the Tribunal if it is made within six months from the date of establishment of the Tribunal. Even this condition is not satisfied in the present case. We may note that after the filing of the application the petitioner was regularized. Thus relief stands granted to him. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, we uphold the order of the learned Tribunal. Writ petition being without any merit is accordingly rejected. No order as to costs. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. 9th September, 2009 ( V.K.Ahuja), J. ™