Belated representations do not revive limitation or create a fresh cause of action.

The petitioner, a Mechanic employed by the Delhi Transport Corporation (“DTC”), was covered by DTC’s pension scheme introduced on 27 November 1992. Under Clause 3, existing employees could opt for the pension scheme within 30 days, while Clause 9 provided for automatic transfer to the pension scheme in the absence of an option. On 15 January 1993, the petitioner expressly opted to continue under the existing CPF scheme.

DTC subsequently introduced a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (“VRS”) on 3 March 1993, under which employees opting for VRS could also seek pensionary benefits. On 7 December 1993, the petitioner sought VRS subject to being granted pensionary benefits, stating that he did not wish to avail VRS if pension was unavailable.

DTC nevertheless granted him VRS on 31 December 1993 without pension, and continued depositing its CPF contribution until his superannuation.

After approximately three decades, the petitioner issued a legal notice seeking pensionary benefits; DTC rejected his claim, following which he instituted OA No. 2943/2022 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (“Tribunal”).

The Tribunal dismissed the OA on the grounds of delay and the petitioner’s earlier election to remain under the CPF scheme.

Whether the petitioner’s claim for pensionary benefits in connection with his VRS, raised nearly three decades after the VRS order, was barred by delay and limitation, and whether a subsequent representation or rejection created a fresh cause of action.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to the DTC pension scheme despite having expressly opted to continue under the CPF scheme on 15 January 1993.

The Court applied the principle that a belated representation or its rejection does not revive an otherwise stale claim or create a fresh cause of action.

Relying on Bhoop Singh v. Union of India, 1992 (3) SCC 136, and the Constitution Bench decision in S.S. Rathore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1989 (4) SCC 582, the Court held that repeated representations do not extend limitation.

The Court also applied the terms of the DTC pension scheme, particularly the provisions governing employee option and automatic transfer, and held that an employee who had expressly opted to remain under the CPF scheme could not subsequently claim pensionary benefits contrary to that election.

The petitioner’s entitlement to pension, if any, crystallised when DTC granted him VRS without pension on 31 December 1993. His failure to challenge that decision for nearly thirty years rendered the claim highly belated.

The Court rejected the argument that the 2022 representation and its rejection supplied a new cause of action, observing that a belated representation cannot circumvent limitation.

Independently, the petitioner had expressly chosen the CPF scheme on 15 January 1993 and thereafter continued to receive CPF benefits until superannuation.

His conditional request for pension while seeking VRS could not override his earlier election or establish a continuing entitlement to the pension scheme. The Tribunal’s reasoning was therefore found to be legally sound.

It further held that, having expressly opted for the CPF scheme and availed CPF benefits, the petitioner was not entitled to claim the pension scheme retrospectively.

Finding no ground to interfere with the Tribunal’s order under Article 226, the Court dismissed the writ petition without any order as to costs.