Claims for financial upgradation filed after a decade-long delay are barred by statutory limitation.

The applicant was appointed as a Laboratory Assistant on 26.02.1986 under an ICMR project and was later absorbed into the National Vector Borne Disease Control Programme (NVBDCP) in a "dying cadre"

The post of Laboratory Assistant is an isolated post with no promotional avenues

On 26.03.2008, the applicant was granted his 1st financial upgradation under the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme in the pay scale of Rs. 4,500–7,000/-

The applicant filed this Original Application in 2018, seeking parity with Junior Stenographers and Upper Division Clerks (UDCs) who were granted the 1st ACP in the higher pay scale of Rs. 5,000–8,000/-

The applicant relied on a 2001 notification and previous litigation (e.g., P.N. Giri v. UOI) to claim that isolated posts in the dying cadre should be treated uniformly for financial upgradation

1. Whether the Original Application is barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, given the ten-year delay in challenging the 2008 ACP grant

2. Whether the Laboratory Assistant post in a dying cadre is entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 5,000–8,000/- at par with Stenographers and UDCs under the ACP Scheme

The Tribunal primarily applied Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which mandates that an application must be filed within one year of the final order, or within a period where a representation has been pending for six months, unless "sufficient cause" for delay is shown

Regarding the merits of the pay scale, the court relied on DoPT Office Memoranda (OM) dated 09.08.1999 and 10.02.2000

These rules specify that for isolated posts, pay scales for ACP shall follow those of similar posts in the same Ministry; however, if no similar post exists, the standard hierarchy in Annexure-II of the August 9, 1999, OM applies

The Tribunal first addressed the issue of limitation, noting that the applicant received the 1st ACP benefit in 2008 but only approached the Tribunal in 2018

The Tribunal found that the applicant had "slept over his right" for a decade and failed to provide justifiable reasons or sufficient cause to condone the delay, thus violating the statutory timeline under Section 21 of the Act

On the merits, the Tribunal evaluated the claim for parity with Stenographers and UDCs. It found that those categories had recommended uniform pay structures accepted by the Government due to comparable posts in non-secretariat organizations

In contrast, the post of Laboratory Assistant in the dying cadre was held not comparable to other Lab Assistant grades in the NVBDCP and lacked a defined hierarchy

The Tribunal determined that the applicant's financial upgradation was correctly governed by the general provisions of Annexure-II of the 1999 OM rather than the specific scales assigned to administrative posts

The Tribunal found no merit in the claim for parity, as the Laboratory Assistant post was not comparable to the Stenographer or UDC posts cited by the applicant

The Original Application was dismissed