Miss RAHAT AFROZE vs STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION and others
This petition arises from an order of the Service Tribunal dismissing the petitioner's civil miscellaneous application for correction of an earlier order after her service appeal had already been dismissed. The core legal question is whether a representation or review application for correction of an order is competent before the Service Tribunal after it has disposed of the main appeal, and whether time spent on such incompetent representation can be excluded for the purpose of limitation. The court held that the Service Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain a representation after disposing of an appeal, and thus an incompetent representation does not arrest the running of time for filing a petition before the Supreme Court. The key principle laid down is that filing an incompetent representation or review before a tribunal does not toll the period of limitation for approaching a higher appellate forum, and petitions filed beyond the statutory period without an application for condonation of delay are liable to be dismissed as time-barred.
- Whether the Service Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain a representation for the correction of an order after the main appeal has already been disposed of?
- Does the filing of an incompetent representation before the Service Tribunal arrest the running of time for filing a petition against the original order before the Supreme Court?
- Is a petition filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation maintainable without a formal application for condonation of delay?
ORDER
This petition has been filed against the order of the Service Tribunal, dated 21-1-2003. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that prior to filing of civil miscellaneous application, appeal filed by her has been dismissed on 15-11-2002, therefore, instead of challenging this order before this Court she filed a representation for the correction of the order.
2. We have noted that such representation was not competent before the Tribunal, as after having disposed of the appeal, it has no jurisdiction to entertain the same. Therefore, the application was rightly dismissed vide the impugned judgment.
3. The learned counsel then contended that petitioner had also challenged order, dated 15-11-2002.
It may be noted that this petition was filed on 29-3-2003, therefore, it would be barred by time against the original order of the Tribunal. Surprisingly for seeking condonation of delay no application has been filed. It is to be observed that as the representation filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal after passing order, dated 15-11-2002 was not competent, therefore, the time for filing of the petition before this Court against this order shall not be arrested and it would continue running against her.
4. Thus, under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the instant petition is not competent and the same is dismissed and leave declined. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.