A bona fide explanation, including legal advice and subsequent steps, constituted sufficient cause to condone delay.

The applicants challenged the order dated 31 October 2023 appointing respondent No. 4, Dr. Deepak Joshi, as Director of the Sports Injury Centre, VMMC & Safdarjung Hospital.

They filed the accompanying Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, along with this application seeking condonation of a 522-day delay.

They attributed the delay to lack of effective communication of the appointment, their initial belief—based on legal advice—that only a senior officer could challenge it, and their later understanding that they had an independent right to question the process.

They also relied on a representation made on 12 February 2026.

The respondents opposed condonation, arguing that the applicants worked under respondent No. 4 and knew of his appointment, but did not challenge it within time.

1. Whether the applicants established sufficient cause to condone the 522-day delay in filing the O.A.

2. Whether the applicants’ asserted lack of knowledge of their legal grievance, prior legal advice, and subsequent representation justified condonation, notwithstanding their knowledge of respondent No. 4’s appointment.

The O.A. was brought under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985; the Tribunal considered whether the delay was sufficiently explained under the Act’s limitation framework.

In H. Guruswamy v. A. Krishnaiah, the Supreme Court stressed that the court must first assess the bona fides and sufficiency of the explanation, rather than begin with the merits.

Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy supports a liberal, pragmatic approach where delay is not due to deliberate inaction, gross negligence, or lack of bona fides, while cautioning against condoning unexplained or mala fide delay.

Ram Nath Sao v. Gobardhan Sao requires a balance between advancing substantial justice and protecting rights accruing to the opposing party through limitation.

Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkumar Chowdhary reiterate that negligence, lack of bona fides, or unexplained inaction may defeat a request for condonation.

The Tribunal first assessed the explanation for delay, as required by H. Guruswamy, and found the applicants’ account—initial reliance on legal advice that another officer alone had a cause of action, later advice that they had an independent grievance, and their subsequent approach to the authorities—to be plausible and not shown to be mala fide.

Although their employment under respondent No. 4 supported an inference that they knew of his appointment, the Tribunal held that such knowledge did not, by itself, establish knowledge of the legal grounds for an independent challenge or deliberate inaction.

The representation did not revive an otherwise time-barred cause; it was considered only as evidence of the applicants’ subsequent conduct.

The Tribunal also made clear that the arguable nature of the appointment challenge was not a substitute for sufficient cause and did not determine the merits.

It expressly left open all merits issues, including the legality of respondent No. 4’s appointment, the applicable procedure, and the applicants’ claimed right to consideration.

The Registry was directed to assign a number to the O.A. and list it on 6 October 2026.