A service challenge filed after an inordinate, unexplained delay is barred by limitation.

The applicant, a former Trackman/Senior Trackman under South Eastern Railway, was removed from service by order dated 24.03.2006 for unauthorised absence from 19.01.2003 to 13.06.2005.

He subsequently submitted a representation dated 18.10.2023 seeking settlement dues and monthly pension, claiming, inter alia, that his wife had attempted to submit medical documents and that he had not properly received the disciplinary proceedings.

The Divisional Engineer (North), Adra, rejected the representation by letter dated 29.02.2024, stating that the disciplinary documents had been duly sent, that the punishment notice had later been acknowledged by the applicant on 19.07.2008, and that the representation had been made after an unexplained delay of more than 15 years.

The applicant thereafter filed the present Original Application on 22.05.2025 and moved M.A. No. 488/2025 seeking condonation of delay on the ground that he had been undergoing psychiatric treatment between 2006 and 2017.

The Tribunal also noticed that the rejection letter dated 29.02.2024 had not been specifically challenged and that the medical certificate relied upon in the miscellaneous application contained dubious overwriting.

Whether the Original Application challenging the applicant’s removal from service and seeking pensionary/settlement benefits was barred by limitation and inordinate delay.

Whether the delay could be condoned on the basis of the applicant’s alleged psychiatric treatment and the medical certificate produced with M.A. No. 488/2025.

Whether the Original Application was maintainable when the rejection letter dated 29.02.2024, which formed the immediate basis of the grievance, had not been challenged.

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 provides the statutory basis for approaching the Tribunal against an order or action concerning service matters.

The Tribunal applied the settled principle that stale service claims and challenges brought after an unexplained and inordinate delay cannot ordinarily be entertained, particularly where the applicant had knowledge of the disciplinary order and had failed to pursue an effective remedy within the prescribed period.

It further applied the principle that the applicant must challenge the operative adverse order forming the basis of the grievance and must provide credible material sufficient to explain the delay; a doubtful or materially overwritten medical document cannot justify condonation of prolonged delay.

The applicant’s removal order was passed in 2006, and the record indicated that he had obtained the charge-sheet and punishment notice on 19.07.2008.

Despite this knowledge, he waited until 18.10.2023 to seek settlement dues and pension, resulting in a delay of more than 15 years.

The Tribunal found no satisfactory explanation for this delay.

The alleged psychiatric treatment did not persuade the Tribunal to condone the delay, particularly because the medical certificate relied upon contained dubious overwriting.

Further, although the applicant was aggrieved by the rejection dated 29.02.2024, he had not challenged that letter in the Original Application, and he approached the Tribunal only on 22.05.2025.

In these circumstances, the claims were treated as barred by limitation and affected by inordinate delay.

It accordingly dismissed O.A. No. 350/737/2025 along with M.A. No. 488/2025, without costs.

No relief was granted in respect of setting aside the removal order or payment of settlement dues and monthly pension.