Rajender Prasad Kaushik vs GNCTD

1


Item No. 38 - Court 2

Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
New Delhi

OA No. 4591/2025
MA No. 919/2026

th
This the 18 day of August, 2026

Hon’ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon’ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member(A)

Rajender Prasad Kaushik aged about 69 yrs.
Ex-Lecturer (English), Employee ID-19910768
S/o Late Sh. Gugan Ram
R/o H. No. 41-B, Extension 1-C, Nangloi, Delhi-110041.



..Applicant(s)

(By Advocates: Mr. S N Sharma with Mr. Mahabir and Mr.
Shakeel Ahmed)

Versus

(1) GNCT of Delhi Through its Chief Secretary/Secretary, Delhi
Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002.

(2) The Director, Directorate of Education, Education
Department, (GNCT of Delhi) Old Secretariat, Near Vidhan
Sabha, Delhi-110054.

(3) The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Dr.
Shyama Prasad Mukherji Marg, Civic Centre, Minto Road, SKD
Basti, Press Enclave, Ajmeri Gate, New Delhi-110002.

...Respondents

(By Advocate: Ms. Filza Moonis)











SOURJYA
SOBHANIYA

2


Item No. 38 - Court 2

O R D E R(Oral)
Hon’ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member(J)
MA No. 919/2026
This MA has been filed by the applicant seeking condonation of
delay of 11,596 days in filing the accompanying OA.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the
applicant is seeking counting of his past service rendered with
the MCD from 14.12.1983 to 18.09.1991 for the purpose of
qualifying service, pay fixation and consequential revision of
pension. He submits that the applicant had made a
representation dated 20.07.1992, which was not decided by the
respondents. He further submits that the applicant had
thereafter made several representations, but the issue remained
unresolved.
3. Learned counsel submits that the applicant retired on
superannuation on 31.10.2016 and came to know, upon
issuance of the PPO dated 16.11.2016, that the service rendered
by him from 14.12.1983 to 18.09.1991 had not been counted
towards his qualifying service. He submits that the issue relates
to pension and pensionary benefits and, therefore, constitutes a
recurring cause of action. He further submits that the applicant
is seeking only notional fixation of pay and pension and would
not claim arrears beyond three years.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes
the MA. She submits that the delay of 11,596 days is enormous
and no sufficient cause has been shown to explain the same.
She submits that the applicant was aware of the alleged
grievance much before his retirement and, despite having made
representations, chose not to approach the Tribunal within the
period prescribed under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
5. She further submits that the plea of recurring cause of
action cannot be used to revive a stale claim which had already
accrued several decades ago. The subsequent representations,
SOURJYA
SOBHANIYA

3


Item No. 38 - Court 2

according to the respondents, cannot extend the period of
limitation.
6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the
documents on record.
7. In our considered opinion, the explanation offered by the
applicant does not constitute sufficient cause for condoning
such an enormous delay. The applicant admittedly claims to
have become aware of the alleged non-counting of his past
service as far back as 1992 and, in any event, the applicant
retired on 31.10.2016.
8. Even thereafter, the applicant did not approach the
Tribunal within the period prescribed under law. The present
proceedings have been initiated after an extraordinary lapse of
time, with the applicant seeking to explain the delay principally
on the basis of repeated representations and the plea of
recurring cause of action.
9. A stale claim cannot be revived merely by making
successive representations to the respondents. The applicant
was conscious of his alleged grievance and had sufficient
opportunity to agitate the same before the appropriate forum.
10. We also note that the applicant seeks to reopen matters
relating to his service rendered more than three decades ago and
consequential fixation of pay and pension after his retirement in
2016. Entertaining such a claim at this stage would unsettle
matters which have remained settled for a considerable period of
time. The present litigation, in the facts and circumstances,
appears to be nothing short of a luxury litigation, sought to be
pursued after an extraordinary lapse of time without any
sufficient explanation for the delay.
11. In view of the above, no sufficient cause has been shown
for condoning the delay of 11,596 days as per Section 21 of the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The MA is accordingly
SOURJYA
SOBHANIYA

4


Item No. 38 - Court 2

dismissed. Consequently, the associated OA No. 4591/2025 also
stands dismissed. No costs.

(Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member(A) Member(J)
/ss/

SOURJYA
SOBHANIYA