Absence of Cogent Explanation for Enormous Delay Precludes Condonation in Compassionate Appointment Claims

Initially, the Tribunal and the High Court of Madhya Pradesh rejected his claims

the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No. 4445/2010 (decided on 27.02.2020), directed the respondents to reconsider his prayer in accordance with the law

the respondents passed an-impugned order dated 21.10.2020

The applicant filed the present Original Application (OA) in 2025, accompanied by MA No. 1950/2024, seeking condonation of a 1,134-day delay

1. Whether the applicant provided "sufficient cause" to condone the 1,134-day delay in filing the Original Application under the Administrative Tribunals Act

The court applied Sections 20 and 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which prescribe the limitation period for filing applications before the Tribunal

The court also accounted for the extension of limitation periods granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation due to the COVID-19 pandemic

The general principle holds that delay can only be condoned upon showing sufficient cause through a factual explanation for every day of the delay

The Tribunal calculated that following the impugned order of 21.10.2020, the statutory limitation expired on 20.10.2021

Even granting the COVID-19 pandemic extensions, the limitation would have expired by March 2022

The present OA was filed more than three years after that deadline

The Tribunal observed that the Miscellaneous Application (MA) for condonation was "bald" and "bereft of any cogent explanation" accounting for the enormous delay

It reasoned that mere reliance on legal precedents or the applicant's status as unemployed does not constitute a factual explanation for the passage of time

Consequently, in the absence of a date-wise or satisfactory explanation, the statutory bar of limitation could not be lifted

The Court dismissed MA No. 1950/2024 for condonation of delay. Resultantly, the Original Application (OA No. 1690/2025) and all pending applications were disposed of as barred by limitation. No costs were awarded.