"Fence-sitters" Cannot Seek Retrospective Regularization Parity After Long Delay Lacking Cogent Reasons for Condonation

The three applicants were engaged as casual laborers by the North Eastern Railway, Varanasi Division, between 1976 and 1981

Following a 1988 notification for regularization, their names appeared in a screening list dated April 21, 1989

While several juniors were allegedly regularized based on subsequent judicial orders (e.g., O.A. No. 63/1996), the applicants remained un-regularized

They first approached the Tribunal in 2011—a delay of approximately 13 to 22 years from the cause of action

Earlier, the Tribunal had directed reconsideration in 2014, but the Allahabad High Court set aside that order in 2018 (Writ Petition No. 27013/2015), remanding the matter to the Tribunal to specifically determine the issue of limitation and delay condonation

1. Whether the Original Application is barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

2. Whether the applicants serve as "fence-sitters" who are precluded from seeking parity with earlier successful litigants due to laches and delay

3. Whether age relaxation can be granted for regularization once the applicants have crossed the age of superannuation

Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, regarding the statutory limitation period for filing applications

State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava (2015), which establishes that "fence-sitters" who wake up after long delays only because their counterparts succeeded in court cannot claim the same benefits

Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006), holding that casual/temporary employees do not have a vested right to regularization in the absence of a proper selection process

Krishna Mahto v. Union of India (2023), stating the Tribunal cannot grant age relaxation to those who have already crossed the prescribed age limit

The Tribunal analyzed the applicants' claim for parity with juniors regularized in 1989/2009. It observed that the applicants failed to approach any judicial forum for decades, only filing the O.A. in 2011

Applying the Arvind Kumar Srivastava doctrine, the Tribunal characterized the applicants as "fence-sitters" who acquiesced to the situation and slept over their rights

The Tribunal reasoned that repetitive representations do not extend the limitation period. Furthermore, it noted that by the time of the final hearing in 2026, the applicants (aged 49-53 in 2011) had already crossed the age of 60

Following Krishna Mahto, the Tribunal determined it lacked the power to grant age relaxation for regularization post-superannuation, especially since temporary or casual engagement does not create a "legitimate expectation" of permanence under the Uma Devi principles

Consequently, the Misc. Delay Condonation Application (M.A. No. 1602/2011) was rejected. As a result, Original Application No. 781/2011 was dismissed without any order as to costs. The court concluded that the applicants, having crossed the age of superannuation, were not entitled to any relief