His services were terminated by an order passed simpliciter on December 3, 1991.
1417 of 1992 It is the admitted position before us that the appeal, which had been filed before the department and was ultimately dismissed, was a statutory one.
In the year 1987, he was declared to have acquired quasi permanent status.
It therefore held that the transferred suit was barred by rule of limitation.
But the Tribunal has number companyrectly appreciated the position and has assumed that there was numberright of appeal under the statute and that the so called appeal of the appellant was merely a representation.
He thereafter challenged the order of his termination by filing a suit which was later transferred to the Administrative Tribunal.
The appellant was appointed as a social worker on ad hoc basis in 1981.
He filed a departmental appeal which was ultimately dismissed.
If the limitation is calculated from the date when the appeal was dismissed, the suit was admittedly within time.
Heard learned companynsel for the parties.
The special leave is granted.
