CWP No. 926 of 2007 5.3.2010 Present: Mr. Shrawan Dogra, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General with Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by Tribunal on 19.10.2006, dismissing his petition on the ground of limitation. It is un-disputed before us that petitioner was working as daily wages Pump Operator and he claimed regularization from 1.4.1999/1.1.2000 after completing the period as laid down by the Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhyays’ case. The petitioner vide his representation dated 21.7.2004 brought to the notice of the respondents that his services had been regularized later in point of time i.e. 4.8.2003 rather than 1999 when he completed the qualifying service. He claimed regularization from an earlier date. The learned Tribunal vide impugned judgment dismissed the petition on the ground of limitation. Section 21 of The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 governs limitation. It provides :- “21.Limitation:- (1) A Tribunal shall not admit an application,- (1) in a case where a final order such as is mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 20 ha been made in connection with the grievance unless the application is made, within one year from the date on which such final order has been made; (b) in a case where an appeal or representation such as is mentioned in clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 20 has been made and a period of six months had expired thereafter without such final order having been made, within one year from the date of expiry of the said period of six months. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where- (a) the grievance in respect of which an application is made had arisen by reason of any order made at any time during the period of three years immediately preceding the date on which the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunal becomes exercisable under this Act in respect of the matter to which such order relates; and (b) no proceedings for the redressal of such grievance had been commenced before the said date before any High Court, CWP No. 926 of 2007 The application shall be entertained by the Tribunal if it is made within the period referred in clause (a), or, as the case may be, clause (b), of sub-section (1) or within a period of six months from the said date, whichever period expires later. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), an application may be admitted after the period of one year specified in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) or, as the case may be, the period of six months specified in sub-section (2), if the applicant satisfies the Tribunal that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period.” We are unable to accept the reasoning advanced by the learned Tribunal. Limitation could not be reckoned from 1.1.1994. It is but obvious that when the petitioner was aggrieved by the order which was admittedly passed on 4.8.1993 and communicated at a later date that the petitioner approached the Court for the redressal of his grievance. In this case, it is undisputed that the representation has been made on 21.7.2004 and the petition filed on 22.2.2005, the petition was, therefore, within statutory period of limitation as prescribed by Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The provision governing limitation also provides for relaxation. In particular sub-section (3) of Section 21 vests powers with the Tribunal to entertain petition(s) if it has been filed beyond the period of time prescribed. In this case, the petitioner was working as a daily wager worker and even it is to be assumed that he approached the Court at a later point of time, he could have been given the benefit of sub-section (3). However, without entering into that controversy, we hold that cause of action accrued to the petitioner once the order dated 4.8.2003 was passed and conveyed to him and also when his representation was rejected thereafter. The Tribunal according to us has taken a very technical view of the matter. Under these circumstances, the order of the Tribunal is quashed and set aside. A direction is accordingly issued that CWP No. 926 of 2007 respondent No. 2 shall decide the case of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law and grant to him the benefits, if any, if admissible in accordance with law. Needless to add that petitioner shall be given an opportunity of being heard and place on record such material in support of his case. Respondent No. 2 shall decide the same within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order. Liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach Court of competent jurisdiction in case a decision adverse to his interest is taken. This petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to the costs. (Dev Darshan Sud), J. (Kuldip Singh), J. 5th March, 2010 (vs)