I am govt. employee.I am punished by appointing athurity.dated 10.3.2003.So i am aggrived.departmental appeal filled. dated 31.5.2003.Higher athurity by appeal rejected.dated 24.3.2004.Further i appeal filled administrative tribunals.dated 13.9.2004. A/T by appeal modified allowded.But govt appeal filled AAT.against me. AAT.decision- my first AT.appeal was time/limitation barred.AT LAST MY QUESTION- I want to know aat.by decision is correct? section 4(2) proviso last- bilopto? active? proviso 2 and 3 any contradiction?against last decision by aat.against case law/reff.Thank you.

ORDER BY ADMINISTRATIVE APPELLATE— TRIBUNAL.DHAKA—–DECISION——NARESH CHANDRA GHOSE, MEMBER….. THIS APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 31-8-2006 PASSED BY THE LEARNED MEMBER,ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CHITTAGONG ALLOWING IN A.T. CASE NO. 35 OF 2004. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES AND PERUSED THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND PAPERS ON RECORD ON POINT OF LIMITATION AT FIRST. IT APPEARS FROM RECORD THAT THE AUTHORITY PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON 10-3-2003 AND THE PETITIONER RESPONDENT FILED THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL ON 31-5-2003 WHICH WAS REJECTED ON 24-03-2004. ACCORDINGLY THE PETITIONER-RESPONDENT FILED THE A.T. CASE ON 13.9.2004. THE AMENDED PROVISION OF SECTION 4(2) OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS ACT.1980 CAME INTO FORCE ON 19.11.1997. ACCORDING TO THE SAID AMENDED PROVISION THE APPEAL PENDING BEFORE THE AUTHORITY DEEMED TO BE REJECTED AFTER EXPIRY OF 2 MONTHS FROM 31.5.2003. SO,IN CALCULATION THE APPEAL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN REJECTED ON 30.7.2003 AND THE PETITIONER- RESPONDENT SIDE WOULD HAVE TO FILE THE A.T.CASE WITHIN 6 MONTHS FROM 30.7.2003 I.E. ON OR BEFORE 30.1.2004. BUT THE PETITIONER RESPONDENT SIDE FILED THE A.T. CASE ON 13.9.2004 LONG AFTER THE LIMITATION PERIOD AS STATED ABOVE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION,WE ARE IN OPINION THAT THE A.T. CASE NO.35 OF 2004 WAS FILED BY THE PETITIONER-RESPONDENT SIDE BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BEYOND LIMITATION PERIOD BUT THE LEARNED MEMBER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL COMMITTED MISTAKE IN REALIZING THE PROVISION OF LOW IN THE LIMITATION ISSUE AND DECIDED THE CASE ON MERIT.THEREFORE, WE ARE INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY HIM. WE HAVE TAKEN SIMILAR VIEW IN A.A.T. APPEAL NO. 26 OF 2002 AND SEVERAL OTHER CASES AND THIS VIEW WAS CONFIRMED BY THE HON'BLE APPELLATE DIVISION IN CIVIL PETITION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL NO. 1731 OF 2006.AS THE A.T. CASE IS FOUND TIME BARRED,WE DO NOT FEEL IT NECESSARY TO GO INTO THE MERIT OF THE CASE.HENCE,IT IS- ORDERED—THAT THE APPEAL BE ALLOWED ON CONTEST. THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 31.8.2006 PASSED BY THE LEARNED MEMBER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHITTAGONG IN A.T. CASE NO. 35 OF 2004 ARE HEREBY SET ASIDE. THE A.T. CASE NO. 35 OF 2004 IS ALSO DISMISSED ON POINT OF LIMITATION. RESPONDENT———-SELF