Belated claims for arrears are barred by laches; repeated representations do not revive limitation.

The applicant, initially appointed as a Preventive Officer in 1972, was promoted as Superintendent of Customs in 1992 and Assistant Commissioner of Customs in 2002. He was granted notional promotion as Deputy Commissioner with effect from 10 December 2006 by order dated 19 November 2010, but monetary arrears for the period from 2006 to 2009 were not paid.

Relying on the Ernakulam Bench’s decision in OA No. 296 of 2012, which directed refixation of pay under FR 22(1)(a)(i) and payment of consequential monetary benefits to similarly situated employees, the applicant sought identical relief.

After his representation remained unaddressed, he filed OA No. 1309 of 2016, pursuant to which the respondents were directed to consider his representation. The respondents rejected the claim by order dated 24 April 2017.

The respondents contended that the claim was barred by limitation because the applicant retired on 31 December 2010 but submitted his first representation only on 30 April 2015.

1. Whether the Original Application seeking arrears of pay and consequential pensionary benefits was barred by limitation and delay and laches under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

2. Whether the applicant, though not a party to OA No. 296 of 2012, was entitled to extension of the benefits of notional pay fixation and arrears granted therein to similarly situated employees.

3. Whether the applicant was entitled to arrears of pay from the date of his notional promotion notwithstanding the respondents’ reliance on the principle of “no work, no pay”.

The Tribunal applied Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which requires an aggrieved person to approach the Tribunal within the prescribed limitation period and does not permit stale claims to be revived through belated representations.

It relied principally on State of Kerala & Others v. Krishnan N.V., Civil Appeal No. 10898 of 2025, order dated 19 August 2025, holding that an inordinately delayed claim for promotional benefits and arrears is liable to be rejected on delay and laches.

The Tribunal also relied on State of U.P. v. Rajmati Singh, which held that repeated representations neither create nor revive a cause of action, and State of Orissa v. Laxmi Narayan Das, which affirmed that inordinate delay and inaction may, by themselves, disentitle a litigant to equitable relief.

The applicant’s substantive claim was based on FR 22(1)(a)(i), governing pay fixation on promotion, and the principle that similarly situated employees should ordinarily receive equal treatment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant retired on 31 December 2010 but raised his claim for arrears for the first time through a representation dated 30 April 2015, after a substantial and unexplained delay.

Applying the Supreme Court’s rulings, it held that the subsequent representation and proceedings could not revive a cause of action that had already become stale; repeated representations do not extend limitation or cure laches.

Although the applicant relied on the earlier order granting benefits to similarly situated employees and disputed the respondents’ “no work, no pay” justification, the Tribunal did not adjudicate those substantive claims because the application was found liable to fail at the threshold on limitation and delay.

The Original Application was accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.