Conveyance allowance claims for disabled employees constitute a recurring cause of action for limitation purposes.

The applicant, a Medical Officer with 65% permanent locomotor disability, is employed under the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS), GNCTD.

He alleged that despite discharging duties requiring extensive travel (dispensary, home visits, and school visits), the respondents failed to grant him Conveyance Allowance at the prescribed double rate for disabled persons as per the Central Government Office Memorandum (OM) dated 01.12.2021.

Between 2021 and 2025, the applicant submitted multiple representations and reminders, which remained unaddressed by the respondents.

He subsequently filed this Original Application (O.A.) in 2026 seeking the release of arrears from 14.05.2020 with 12% interest and compensation for harassment under the RPwD Act, 2016.

The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding limitation, arguing the claim for 2020 arrears was time-barred.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the release of Conveyance Allowance at revised/double rates from the date of joining (14.05.2020) as per the OM dated 01.12.2021.

2. Whether the claim is barred by limitation under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

3. Whether a direction can be issued to the respondents to decide the applicant’s pending representations within a specified timeframe.

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which governs the jurisdiction and filing of applications.

Central Government Office Memorandum (OM) dated 01.12.2021 (implemented by GNCTD), which prescribes revised rates of Conveyance Allowance for Medical Officers.

Principle of "recurring cause of action" regarding the payment of monthly allowances to disabled persons.

Protections afforded under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016.

The applicant argued that as a person with benchmark disability using a modified vehicle for official duties, the denial of allowance constituted a violation of statutory rights and a recurring financial loss.

The respondents contended that the application was filed in 2026 for claims dating back to 2020, making it "hopelessly barred by limitation".

The applicant countered that since the allowance is a monthly entitlement, its non-payment creates a continuing cause of action.

The Tribunal noted that the respondents had "sat tight" over multiple representations.

The Tribunal determined that the principles of natural justice would be served by directing the Competent Authority to pass a speaking order, while keeping the legal question of limitation open for the respondents to raise during the administrative review.

It directed the respondents to consider and decide the applicant's representations dated 15.01.2021, and subsequent reminders, within six weeks by passing a "reasoned and speaking order".

This consideration must be "without prejudice" to the respondents' contention regarding the issue of limitation.

The applicant was granted liberty to further agitate the matter if the administrative decision is unfavorable.