V SUNDARARAJAN vs SHIPPING AND WATERWAYS

1 OA 1169/2026
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA 310/01169/2026
th
Dated Wednesday the 07 day of October Two Thousand Twenty Six
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. VEENA KOTHAVALE, MEMBER (J)

V. Sundararajan,
S /o. R. Varadarajan (Late),
C2-6-2A,
Delhi Avenue,
IIT Madras Campus,
Chennai -600 036. … Applicant
By Advocate Mr. T. Annamalai
Vs
1. The Registrar,
Indian Maritime University ,
Uthandi, ECR,
Chennai-600119.
2. The Vice Chancellor,
Indian Maritime University ,
Uthandi, ECR,
Chennai-600119. … Respondents
By Advocate Mr. M. Kishore Kumar, SPC

2 OA 1169/2026
ORAL ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Ms. Veena Kothavale, Member (J))
Heard both counsels.
2. In the present OA, the applicant has sought the
following relief:
“a) Direct the respondents to consider and dispose
the representation submitted dated 23.03.2026,
wherein the applicant has requested to settle his
eligible terminal benefits such as GPF, gratuity,
earned leave and such other benefits in accordance
with the applicable rules, within a time limit as may
be fixed by this Hon. Tribunal and communicate the
decision to the Applicant.”
3. The applicant has filed this OA stating that he has
st
submitted a representation dated 23.03.2026 to the 1
respondent stating that he has worked as Audio-Visual
Specialist from 26.06.1987 to 16.06.1990 and thereafter, he
resigned and was relieved from service and requested for
settlement of benefits such as GPF, gratuity, earned leave,
etc.
4. It is observed that the applicant is seeking certain
benefits with respect to his service rendered for three years
st
in 1 respondent's university during the period from
26.06.1987 to 16.06.1990. The cause of action, if any, in the
case of applicant arose in 1990 after his resignation and he
did not make any claim in this regard at that point of time.

3 OA 1169/2026
Now, after 26 years, applicant is trying to revive the cause of
action and claiming service benefits in respect of the service
rendered between 26.06.1987 and 16.06.1990 by giving
representation.
5. In this regard, the Hon. Supreme Court in the case of
Chief Execute Officer Vs. Lalitha (2025 INSC 565) has held
that:-
“A Court or Tribunal before direction “consideration” of
a claim or representation should examine whether the
claim or representation is with reference to a “live”
issue or whether it is with reference to a “dead” or
“stale” issue. If it is with reference to a “dead” or “stale
issue” or dispute, the Court/Tribunal should put an
end to the matter and should not direct consideration
or reconsideration.”
6. Similar observation has been made by the Hon.
Supreme Court in the case of C. Jacob Vs. Director of
Geology & Mining and Another (AIR 2009 SC 264), Union of
India Vs. M. K. Sarkar [(2010) 2 SCC 59] and in Union of
India Vs. Chaman Rana (AIR 2018 SC 1478).
7. In view of the above, it is apparent that the applicant is
seeking relief in respect of the cause of action which arose in
1990, now has become “stale”. He cannot be allowed to

4 OA 1169/2026
revive the same after 26 years. Accordingly, OA is dismissed
at the admission stage.
(Veena Kothavale)
Member (J)
07.10.2026
Digitally signed
by LOKESH M
Date:
2026.10.16
15:47:28 +05'30'
LOKESH M
COURT MASTER
CAT CB