1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by dismissal of the writ petition filed by him against the order passed by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short, "the Tribunal") declining his prayer for issue of a direction to the Respondents to convene review DPC for reconsideration of his case for promotion to the post of Senior Administrative Grade of Indian Defence Accounts Service (for short, "the Senior Administrative Grade") against the vacancies of 2003.

2. The Petitioner has also filed an application for condonation of 928 days delay in filing of the special leave petition.

3. The Petitioner joined service in Indian Defence Accounts Service in December, 1982. After completion of training, he was posted as Assistant Controller of Defence Accounts in January, 1984. He was promoted as Deputy CDA w.e.f. 15.12.1986. In 1989, he was sent on deputation in the Ministry of Defence as Assistant Financial Adviser. He was promoted as 4. Deputy Financial Adviser in November, 1991 and as Joint Controller of Defence Accounts in December, 1992.

4. In the DPC held on 2.6.2003, the Petitioners case was considered for promotion to the post of Senior Administrative Grade but he was not found suitable.

5. The recommendations of the DPC were approved by the Appointments Committee of Cabinet (ACC) sometime in December, 2003. Thereafter, some of the officers junior to the Petitioner were promoted to Senior Administrative Grade. After almost two years of his supersession, the Petitioner made representation dated 26.10.2005, which was followed by another representation dated 7.12.2005 for reconsideration of his case for promotion to the post of Senior Administrative Grade but the same do not appear to have been accepted by the competent authority. His case was considered in the DPC held on 22.3.2006 for promotion against the vacancies of the year 2006 and on being found suitable, he was promoted vide order dated 10.5.2006.

6. Soon after his promotion, the Petitioner filed an application Under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short, "the Act"), which came to be registered as O.A. No. 1316 of 2006. The thrust of the Petitioners case was that the ACC headed by the Prime Minister had overruled the recommendations of the DPC and ordered for his promotion but the decision of the ACC was not implemented by the Ministry of Defence and persons junior to him were promoted.

7. In the reply filed on behalf of the Respondents, it was categorically averred that the Petitioners name was not recommended for promotion because the DPC did not grade him fit for promotion and the recommendations of the DPC were approved by the ACC. It was also averred that the DPC has assessed the overall suitability of the candidates and then made recommendations for the promotion.

8. The Tribunal, after going through the records produced by the Respondents, recorded a finding that the ACC had not disapproved the recommendations of the DPC and held that the Petitioners grievance in the matter of non-promotion was untenable because he was found unfit.

9. The writ petition filed by the Petitioner was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court by taking cognizance of the fact that the DPC had found him unfit for promotion. The High Court opined that the award of a grading which is below the benchmark cannot be treated as an adverse remark requiring communication.

10. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court in Dev Dutt v. Union of India (2008) 8 SCC 725 [LQ/SC/2008/1173] and order dated 22.10.2008 passed in Civil Appeal No. 6227 of 2008 Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar v. Union of India and Ors. and argued that the Petitioner is entitled to be promoted as of right because he had earned very good reports for the period under consideration i.e. 1996-97 to 2000-2001.

11. In our view, there is no merit in the Petitioners challenge to the orders passed by the Tribunal and the High Court. Though it may appear repetitive, it needs to be emphasized that the DPC had found the Petitioner unfit for promotion to the post of Senior Administrative Grade and his assertion that the ACC had disapproved the recommendations of the DPC was found to be factually incorrect. The Petitioner had not challenged the recommendations of the DPC on merits either before the Tribunal or the High Court. Therefore, the concurrent view expressed by the two judicial bodies on the Petitioners entitlement to be promoted to Senior Administrative Grade cannot be faulted.

12. The explanation given by the Petitioner for delayed filing of the special leave petition is wholly unsatisfactory and there is no valid ground for exercise of power by this Court Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

13. With the above observations, the special leave petition is dismissed.

14. Before parting with the case, we consider it necessary to note that for quite some time, the Administrative Tribunals established under the Act have been entertaining and deciding the applications filed Under Section 19 of the Act in complete disregard of the mandate of Section 21, which reads as under:

21. Limitation.-(1) A Tribunal shall not admit an application,-

(a) in a case where a final order such as is mentioned in Clause (a) of Sub-section (2) of Section 20 has 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, the application shall be entertained by the Tribunal if it is made within the period referred to 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.

15. A reading of the plain language of the above reproduced Section makes it clear that the Tribunal cannot admit an application unless the same is made within the time specified in Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 21(1) or Section 21(2) or an order is passed in terms of Sub-section (3) for entertaining the application after the prescribed period. Since Section 21(1) is couched in negative form, it is the duty of the Tribunal to first consider whether the application is within limitation. An application can be admitted only if the same is found to have been made within the prescribed period or sufficient cause is shown for not doing so within the prescribed period and an order is passed Under Section 21(3).

16. In the present case, the Tribunal entertained and decided the application without even adverting to the issue of limitation. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner tried to explain this omission by pointing out that in the reply filed on behalf of the Respondents, no such objection was raised but we have not felt impressed. In our view, the Tribunal cannot abdicates its duty to act in accordance with the statute under which it is established and the fact that an objection of limitation is not raised by the Respondent/non applicant is not at all relevant.

17. A copy of this order be sent to the Registrar of the Principal Bench of the Tribunal, who shall place the same before the Chairman of the Tribunal for appropriate order.