Delay in filing Original Application condoned; matter remitted to consider gratuity claim.

The applicant, Bashir Ahmad Lone, was initially appointed as a daily wager on February 5, 1987, in the respondent department.

His services were regularized on April 1, 1994, as a Helper, after approximately seven years of daily wage service.

He superannuated as an Assistant Lineman from P.H.E. Division Handwara on June 30, 2020.

After his superannuation, only his pension was granted, while other consequential service benefits, particularly gratuity, were not released.

The applicant approached departmental authorities, including respondent No. 3, multiple times through representations, but received no information regarding the withholding of his gratuity.

The matter was brought before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Srinagar Bench, with the applicant also filing M.A. No. 706/2025 seeking condonation of delay in filing the Original Application No. 559/2025.

1. Whether the delay in filing Original Application No. 559/2025 should be condoned.

2. Whether the respondents should be directed to consider the applicant's representations regarding the non-release of his gratuity and pass a speaking and reasoned order.

Section 21 of the Central Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, prescribes a limitation period of one year for filing an Original Application but allows the Tribunal to entertain an application beyond this period if sufficient cause for condonation of delay is shown.

The principle applied is that delay may be condoned if it is neither intentional nor deliberate, especially when the applicant was genuinely pursuing their grievance before departmental authorities.

Reference was also made to *Anil Ramdas Pawar v. Union of India*, (2020) SCC OnLine Bom 375, regarding condonation of delay.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's submission that the delay in approaching it was neither intentional nor deliberate and occurred due to circumstances beyond his control, as he was pursuing his grievance with departmental authorities through representations, believing the matter would be considered.

The Tribunal noted that the explanation did not reflect a lack of bona fides or deliberate inaction.

Consequently, in the interest of substantial justice and to avoid rejecting the matter on technical grounds, the Tribunal found sufficient cause to condone the delay, citing the precedent of *Anil Ramdas Pawar*.

Regarding the substantive grievance, the applicant's counsel sought a direction to treat the O.A. as a representation, which the Tribunal acceded to, without expressing an opinion on the merits, thereby allowing the departmental authorities to address the gratuity claim according to rules and law.

The O.A. was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to treat the present O.A. along with the annexed representations (Annexure –A IV) as a representation.

The respondents were directed to consider the same in accordance with applicable rules and law, and pass a speaking and reasoned order regarding the applicant's claim for gratuity, as per his entitlement, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, provided no other legal impediment exists.

There was no order as to costs.