Application for condonation of delay in a service matter involving continuous wrong allowed.

The applicant, Deepak Kumar, filed O.A. No. 955/2026 seeking a direction to the respondents to count his previous service of 3 years and 7 months rendered with West Central Railways (WCR) for the purpose of annual increment and leave benefits, along with other consequential benefits, as per DoP OM dated August 17, 2016.

He also sought the payment of the difference in arrears of pay from June 21, 2023, until the fixation of pay, asserting that his technical resignation was accepted and due permission was obtained for reckoning previous service.

The respondents contended that the O.A. was barred by limitation as the cause of action arose in 2023.

The applicant had also filed M.A. No. 1238/2026 for condonation of delay in filing the O.A.

A representation dated July 6, 2023 (Annexure A-2) was pending with the competent authority.

1. Whether the application for condonation of delay in filing the O.A. should be allowed given that the subject matter relates to a continuous wrong and the cause of action arises every month.

2. Whether the competent authority should be directed to consider and decide the applicant’s pending representation dated July 6, 2023 (Annexure A-2) by passing a reasoned and speaking order.

The court applied the principle established in *M.R. Gupta v. Union of India Ors.* (1995 SCC (5) 628) which holds that in cases involving continuous wrong, such as improper pay, the cause of action arises every month, thereby allowing for the condonation of delay.

The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, regarding limitation, was also referenced by the respondents.

The court condoned the delay in filing the O.A. by applying the principle from *M.R. Gupta v. Union of India Ors.* (1995 SCC (5) 628).

It reasoned that the present O.A., seeking proper pay and benefits, concerned a continuous wrong where a fresh cause of action arose each month.

This justified allowing M.A. No. 1238/2026 for condonation of delay.

Regarding the main relief, the court, with the consent of both parties, opted not to delve into the merits of the case at the admission stage.

Instead, it deemed it appropriate to direct the respondents to decide the applicant's already pending representation dated July 6, 2023 (Annexure A-2).

This approach was based on ensuring the principles of natural justice were met.

Without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case, the court directed the competent authority among the respondents to consider and decide the applicant’s pending representation dated July 6, 2023 (Annexure A-2) by passing a reasoned and speaking order within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

The decision made on the representation is to be communicated to the applicant.

The O.A. stood disposed of at the admission stage with no order as to costs.