Delay condonation requires specific and satisfactory explanation, not sympathetic grounds.

The applicant, Pramod Kumar Swain, filed an Original Application (OA) on September 13, 2019, seeking directions to the respondents to act upon a Managing Committee directive to appoint him as a Lab Attendant in place of his father, compensate him for harassment, and impose litigation costs.

The applicant's father had taken voluntary retirement, and the Managing Committee of the Orissa Red Cross Blood Bank, in a meeting on March 2, 1991, resolved to appoint the applicant as a Laboratory Attendant.

However, the applicant was temporarily appointed as a Helper in the Transfusion Fluid Section on December 7, 1991, and his service was terminated effective July 6, 1998, due to the closing of the section.

The applicant did not challenge his termination but filed the OA to implement the 1991 resolution, nearly 28 years later.

To address the delay, the applicant filed MA No. 517 of 2021 seeking condonation of delay, citing financial crisis due to crop destruction caused by wrong pesticide application by a friend while he was absent.

The respondents contested the MA and OA on grounds of delay, laches, and merit.

1. Whether an application for condonation of delay, citing financial hardship due to crop damage as a "sufficient cause," should be granted given the significant delay of approximately 28 years in filing the Original Application.

2. Whether the Original Application can be maintained in light of the significant, unexplained delay and the dismissal of the application for condonation of delay.

Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, mandates that the Tribunal shall not admit an application if it is filed beyond the prescribed limitation period of one year from the date of a final order or one year from the expiry of six months without a final order after an appeal/representation.

Sub-section (3) of Section 21 allows for admission after the prescribed period if the applicant satisfies the Tribunal that there was "sufficient cause" for not making the application within such period.

The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the provisions of Section 21 are mandatory, not discretionary, and the Tribunal has a duty to examine limitation even if not raised.

The Supreme Court in *State of Uttar Pradesh & Others Vs. Satish Chand Shivhare and Brother(s)*, (2022 SCC OnLine SC 2151), observed that a liberal approach to condone delay does not permit condonation based on flimsy grounds.

Additionally, *Commissioner, Nagar Parishad, Bhilwara v. Labour Court, Bhilwara*, (2009) 3 SCC 525, establishes that while deciding a condonation of delay application, the court should not delve into the merits of the case.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's explanation for the nearly 28-year delay in filing the OA—financial crisis due to crop damage—was vague, unspecific, and casual.

The application for condonation of delay (MA No. 517 of 2021) was notably silent on the exact duration of the delay to be condoned or the precise year of crop loss.

Applying the principles from *State of Uttar Pradesh & Others Vs. Satish Chand Shivhare and Brother(s)*, the Tribunal concluded that such flimsy grounds do not constitute "sufficient cause" required under Section 21(3) of the A.T. Act, 1985, for condoning mandatory limitation periods.

The Tribunal emphasized its bounden duty to look into limitation as per Section 21, irrespective of whether it was raised by the parties.

Given the lack of a proper, satisfactory, and convincing explanation for the inordinate delay, and adhering to the mandatory nature of Section 21, the Tribunal determined it could not exercise its discretion to condone the delay on sympathetic grounds alone.

Consequently, the Original Application itself was deemed to have no legal standing due to being time-barred and was also dismissed.

No costs were awarded.