Delay in challenging compassionate-appointment rejection condoned where bona fide pursuit constituted sufficient cause.

The applicant’s claim for compassionate appointment was rejected by the respondent through communication dated 07.02.2017.

The applicant asserted that he and his family continued to pursue the matter and were led to believe that the claim remained under consideration.

On 20.06.2023, the applicant obtained information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, allegedly revealing that persons whose claims arose after the death of his father had been granted compassionate appointments, while his claim had been rejected without reasons.

The applicant thereafter filed O.A. No. 2051/2023 before the Tribunal. That application was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh application containing better particulars.

The present Original Application was subsequently filed along with M.A. No. 2908/2023 seeking condonation of delay.

The respondents opposed the application, contending that the claim was barred under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, as the cause of action arose on 07.02.2017 and subsequent representations or RTI information could not revive limitation.

1. Whether the applicant had shown “sufficient cause” under Section 21(3) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, for condonation of delay in filing the Original Application?

2. Whether the applicant’s continued representations, receipt of RTI information on 20.06.2023, and prior filing and withdrawal of O.A. No. 2051/2023 constituted a bona fide explanation for the delay?

The Tribunal applied Section 21(3) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which permits admission of an application beyond the prescribed limitation period where sufficient cause for the delay is established.

It relied on Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, (2013) 12 SCC 649, for the principle that applications for condonation should receive a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented and non-pedantic consideration, while still requiring bona fides and reasonable explanation.

It also relied on Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji, (1987) 2 SCC 107, emphasizing that substantial justice should ordinarily prevail over technical considerations.

The Tribunal referred to Madras Port Trust v. Hymanshu International, (1979) 4 SCC 176, for the principle that public authorities should act as model litigants and should not defeat bona fide claims merely through technical pleas of limitation.

The respondents relied on D.C.S. Negi v. Union of India, S.S. Rathore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Union of India v. M.K. Sarkar, State of Tripura v. Arabinda Chakraborty, and State of Uttaranchal v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari, for the rule that repeated representations and subsequent information generally do not extend or revive limitation.

The Tribunal held that, at the stage of deciding condonation of delay, it was required to examine whether the applicant’s explanation was bona fide and constituted sufficient cause, rather than undertake a detailed adjudication of the merits of the Original Application.

Although the rejection of compassionate appointment occurred on 07.02.2017, the applicant claimed to have continuously pursued the matter and to have discovered, through RTI information received on 20.06.2023, facts relevant to challenging the rejection and alleging differential treatment.

His prompt filing of the earlier Original Application, followed by the present proceedings after withdrawal with liberty to file afresh, supported the assertion that he had not intentionally or negligently delayed the litigation.

The Tribunal therefore found no material indicating deliberate delay, mala fides or a fabricated explanation.

It clarified that the respondents’ limitation objections—including whether RTI information created a fresh cause of action—could be considered while deciding the Original Application on merits, but did not defeat condonation at this preliminary stage.

M.A. No. 2908/2023 was allowed and the delay in filing O.A. No. 2515/2023 was condoned.

The Tribunal expressly stated that its observations were confined to the condonation application and would not prejudice the independent adjudication of the Original Application on merits.

The matter was directed to be listed for final hearing on 07.10.2026, with pleadings to be completed in the meantime.