Fence-sitters are barred from challenging settled seniority lists after inordinate delay to avoid unsettling established service positions.

The applicants, working as Goods Loco Pilots in the West Central Railway, filed a series of Original Applications (OAs) in 2021 and 2022.

They sought a retrospective grant of Grade Pay of Rs. 2400 effective from 01.05.2010 or 14.03.2012 and the modification of a seniority list issued on 14.07.2015.

The applicants based their claims on earlier decisions of the Tribunal (notably Hari Kesh Meena v. UOI in 2015 and Pappu Lal Meena v. UOI in 2021) where similarly situated employees were granted relief.

Records indicated that the applicants had already accepted promotions on 21.07.2020, which were based on the very seniority list (dated 14.07.2015) they were now seeking to challenge.

1. Whether the Original Applications are barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, given the delay of approximately six to ten years in approaching the Tribunal.

2. Whether the applicants, as "fence-sitters," can seek to unsettle a long-standing seniority list and claim consequential benefits based on judgments passed in favor of other employees in earlier years.

Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which mandates that an application must be filed within one year from the date of the final order or grievance, or within six months if a representation is pending.

The equitable principle that "fence-sitters" lose their right to agitate legal claims if they fail to approach the court within a reasonable time, especially in matters of seniority where delays cause a "rippling effect" on third parties.

The court further distinguished the precedent of Kuldip Chand v. Union of India Ors. (1995), which allows for challenges to illegal seniority lists when promotion is denied, noting that the principle does not apply if the party has already benefited from said seniority list.

The Tribunal observed that the cause of action for the Grade Pay claim arose nearly a decade ago and the challenge to the seniority list arose six years prior to the filing of the OAs.

While other sets of employees had challenged the 2015 seniority list between 2012 and 2017, the present applicants waited until 2021.

The court reasoned that allowing the applicants to revisit a 2015 seniority list would lead to endless litigation and prevent the list from ever reaching finality.

Crucially, the Tribunal noted that the applicants were not "aggrieved" in the traditional sense because they had accepted promotions in July 2020 that were predicated on the 2015 list.

By accepting the benefits of the list before challenging its validity, the applicants could not justify the inordinate delay.

The court held that the OAs were barred by the statutory period of limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

Consequently, all 12 Original Applications and the associated Miscellaneous Applications for condonation of delay were dismissed with no order as to costs.