Delay in seeking pay fixation based on past military service is not fatal if representations remained pending.

The applicant served as a Combatant Clerk in the Bengal Engineering Group, Roorkee for approximately 7 years (1965–1973)

Following his military service, he was re-employed by the Department of Telecommunications on June 1, 1974

He retired on January 31, 2004

Throughout his tenure and post-retirement, the applicant sought pay and pension fixation by counting his Army service under Fundamental Rule (FR) 27 and Army re-employment rules

Despite relevant records being supplied by the Army to the respondents in 2022, the department claimed a lack of documents regarding his "option" choice in March 2023

The respondents contested the O.A. primarily on the grounds of a 51-year delay and the bar under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

1. Whether the Original Application is barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, given the 20-year gap since retirement

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to the computation of his past Army service for pay and pension fixation in his civil post

Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which prescribes a one-year limitation period for filing applications

Fundamental Rule (FR) 27 regarding pay fixation and Rule 16(2) of the re-employment rules concerning ex-combatant clerks

Precedent of Surjeet Singh Sahni v. State of UP & Ors. (2022) regarding the strict application of limitation

The principle that administrative lapses or the loss of records by the department should not disadvantage an employee

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' preliminary objection regarding limitation, noting that the grievance remained "pending" because the department continued to process the claim as recently as 2023 by requesting documents

The court reasoned that since the department was actively corresponding and seeking records from Army authorities, the cause of action was effectively kept alive

The lack of a "final reasoned order" meant the statutory clock under Section 21 had not fully lapsed in a manner that precluded judicial review

The Bench observed that a similarly situated employee had received benefits, and any denial based on the non-availability of records—which the applicant had now provided—would be unjust

The Tribunal disposed of the application without deciding on the merits, directing the applicant to file a fresh representation with all relevant documents within eight weeks. The respondents were ordered to treat the representation as "within time" and pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with the rules for re-employment of ex-servicemen within three months of receipt