The finding of the Administrative Tribunal in respect of limitation in filing the cases is wrong and contrary to the provision of the 2nd proviso to section 4(2) of the Act. The respondents were dismissed from service following the procedures as contained in Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985 and as such the Administrative Appellate Tribunal erred in law in dismissing the appeals, which, however, did not consider the question of limitation at all. We find substance in all the appeals. Accordingly, these appeals are allowed and impugned decision made by the Administrative Appellate Tribunal affirming the decision of the Administrative Tribunal is set aside. .....Ministry of Finance =VS= Md. Mominur Rahman, (Civil), 2018 (2) [5 LM (AD) 335] ....View Full Judgment

Limitation means the period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application. Courts of Law cannot be approached beyond fixed period. It is for general welfare that a period be put on litigation. Further, it is a general principle of law that law is made to protect only diligent and vigilant people. Law will not protect people who are careless about their rights.
The general governing law in this respect is contained in the Limitation Act, 1908 (Act IX of 1908).
If an appeal is dismissed on ground of limitation, conflicting decision is likely in the in the other appeal against the same judgment when decided on merit- the Limitation Act, 1908 (Act IX of 1908), Section 5. ….. [Md. Suruzzaman vs. Bangladesh and another, 13 BLD (AD) 125]

Limitation–
No period of limitation has been prascribed by law for seeking redress under article 102 of the Constitution. However, such relief must be sought as early as possible and must be shown due diligence. There is no special provision of privilege for the Government to explain the delay invoking constitutional jurisdiction. …Murtuza Shah(Md.) =VS= Ataharul Haque, (Civil), 2019 (2) [7 LM (AD) 158] ....View Full Judgment

Administrative Appellate Tribunal Rules,1982
Rule 6 (7)
Limitation– A.A.T. Appeal No.72 of 2000 was dismissed for default on 08.05.2006 and thereafter about 1(one) year 10(ten) months after passing of the said dismissal order this appellant filed the miscellaneous case for setting aside the said dismissal order the explanation which this appellant offered before the Administrative Appellate Tribunal for condonation of delay was not at all satisfactory for condonation of the said long delay of 1(one) year 10(ten) months. So, we find that the Administrative Appellate Tribunal did not commit any wrong or illegality in rejecting the said miscellaneous case for setting aside the dismissal order of appeal holding that as barred by limitation. Considering the facts narrated above, we rather find that the Administrative Appellate Tribunal was quite justified in rejecting the miscellaneous case for setting aside the dismissal order of the appeal. ...Nur Mohammad =VS= Bangladesh, (Civil), 2021(1) [10 LM (AD) 375] ....View Full Judgment