State of Tripura v. Arabinda Chakraborty, (2014) 6 SCC 460 : (2014) 3 SCC (Civ) 596 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 300 : 2014 SCC OnLine SC 353 at page 463
15. In our opinion, the suit was hopelessly barred by law of limitation. Simply by making a representation when there is no statutory provision or there is no statutory appeal provided, the period of limitation would not get extended. The law does not permit extension of period of limitation by mere filing of a representation. A person may go on making representations for years and in such an event the period of limitation would not commence from the date on which the last representation is decided. In the instant case, it is a fact that the respondent was given a fresh appointment order on 22-11-1967, which is on record. The said appointment order gave a fresh appointment to the respondent and therefore, there could not have been any question with regard to continuity of service with effect from the first employment of the respondent.
No comments:
Post a Comment