A decades-late challenge to alternative absorption and pay fixation is barred by limitation.

The applicant, a railway running-staff employee, was medically decategorised in 1993 and absorbed as a Draftsman in the pay scale of Rs. 1400–2300, with his pay fixed by adding a 30% running-allowance element

He contended that Railway Board Circular dated 22 May 1979 and Rule 1307 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (IREM), Vol. I, required his alternative scale to be fixed at Rs. 1600–2660

He later received promotions, retired in 2020, and filed this application in 2022 seeking scale protection and consequential revision of pension and settlement dues

1. Whether the applicant was entitled, under Rule 1307 of IREM, Vol. I and the Railway Board Circular dated 22 May 1979, to absorption in the claimed equivalent scale rather than the Rs. 1400–2300 scale

2. Whether the applicant could challenge his 1993 absorption and claim consequential benefits nearly 29 years later, despite accepting the post and subsequent promotions

Rule 1307 of IREM, Vol. I, read with the Railway Board Circular dated 22 May 1979, provides for adding 30% to the minimum and maximum of a running staff member’s parent scale when determining an equivalent scale for alternative absorption.

Para 1308 of IREM, Vol. I, and Master Circular No. 25 concern protection of pay through addition of the running-allowance element.

The Tribunal also referred to Para 1304 of IREM, Vol. I, concerning alternative absorption and protection of staff in the absorbing cadre.

Under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, an application is subject to limitation; repeated representations do not revive a stale cause of action.

The Tribunal found that adding 30% to the applicant’s parent scale of Rs. 1350–2200 yielded Rs. 1755–2860, corresponding, in its view, to an equivalent scale of Rs. 1600–2660; it therefore observed that the applicant ought to have been placed in the appropriate higher scale, although his pay had been protected by the 30% addition.

Nevertheless, the absorption decision dated 1993 was challenged only in 2022. The applicant had accepted the alternative post, continued in service, and accepted subsequent promotions without pursuing legal remedies at the relevant time. The Tribunal held that post-retirement representations could not revive the stale claim and that reopening the settled service arrangement after decades was barred by delay under Section 21.

No relief was granted, and there was no order as to costs.