IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No.: 209 of 2008 Date of decision: 9.7.2009 Bir Singh … Petitioner. Versus State of H.P and others. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Ashwani Kumar Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.R.K.Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General. Per Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) This petition has been filed by the petitioner before the erstwhile H.P.State Administrative Tribunal, praying therein that the respondents may be directed to give work charge status as cook to the petitioner from 1.1.1994 with all other benefits incidental thereof, such as, pay fixation, arrears of pay, seniority, etc. He also prayed that the respondents be directed to grant pension to the applicant and claimed interest on the said pension at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of his retirement. Since the Tribunal stands abolished vide notification issued by the Central government, the case has been transferred to this Court in terms of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (Transfer of Decided and Pending Cases and Applications) Act, 2008. The matter has now been registered as CWP (T) 209 of 2008. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 Reply has been filed by the State and in the said reply it has been stated that in fact the petitioner was previously employed in the Indian Army and served in the Indian Army w.e.f. 18.9.1957 to 2.2.1973 and his date of birth as recorded in the discharge book i.e. the army record was 1.7.1937. However, the petitioner fraudulently got his date of birth recorded in the service book in civil employment as 26.5.1943. When he was asked to give information regarding his date of birth he did not produce any requisite document but produced a list of family members and date of birth certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat, Surla. Only year of birth i.e. 1938 was recorded and no date of birth was recorded. The respondent was thereafter retired on 22.8.2000. The original application was prepared in November, 2007 and appears to have been filed before the H.P.State Administrate Tribunal in January, 2008 and was listed for the first time before the learned Tribunal on 11th January, 2008. The format of the original application before the learned Tribunal provides that a person in para 5 must make averments about limitation. The following averment has been made by the petitioner in para-5:- “Limitation: The applicant further declares that application is within limitation as prescribed under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985.” There is no doubt that this averment has been admitted by the respondents and it is argued by Shri Ashwani Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, that State now cannot raise the plea of limitation. However, on the facts of the case we find that the petitioner admittedly stood retired on 22.8.2000 and the petition was filed in 3 January, 2008. There is no explanation in the petition as to what he was doing for eight years. The limitation provided under the H.P. Administrative Tribunal Act was only one year. Limitation is a point which the Court dealing with the matter is bound to go into. We also find that this is a case where the petitioner has not placed correct facts before the Court. The petitioner did not bring to the notice of this Court the circumstances under which he was retired on 22.8.2000. Here we are dealing with a man who gave a wrong date of birth. The petitioner was retired from service much after he had attained the normal age of superannuation and when filing the petition he hid these facts from this Court. He gave no explanation for the delay in filing the petition but made an averment that the application is within limitation prescribed under Section 21 of the H.P.State Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, which averment is patently false. Shri Ashwani Kumar Gupta, learned counsel, has drawn our attention to a judgement of the Supreme Court delivered in K.C.Sharma and others vs. Union of India and others, All India Services Law Journal 1998 (1), 54, wherein the Apex Court decided that when the validity of retrospective amendment was examined and quashed by the Tribunal the persons who were not even parties could again approach the Tribunal thereafter and their petition could not be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. We are afraid that this judgement does not help the petitioner at all in this case. The judgement relied upon by the petitioner in the case of Gauri Dutt and others vs. State of H.P., Latest Himachal Law Judgment, 2008, (HP) 366, was rendered by this Court on 29th December, 2007. The original application in this case was prepared in November, 2007 as noted by us above. It is purported to have been signed by the 4 applicant on 10th November, 2007. There is no mention of Gauri Dutt’s case in the body of the application or in para 5 which specifically deals with limitation. The petitioner has not only approached the Court after eight years but has tried to mislead the Court and therefore, is not entitled to any discretionary relief from this Court. The petition is accordingly rejected. ( Deepak Gupta ) Judge. 9th July, 2009. (Surinder Singh) ™ Judge.