Inordinate and unexplained delay of 13 years precludes condonation of limitation for challenging removal from service.

The applicant, Harish Chandra Saini, was removed from service by the respondents via a punishment order dated 06.02.2002

The applicant filed the present Misc. Application (M.A.) in 2015 seeking condonation of a 13-year delay in filing his Original Application (O.A.) to challenge that removal

The applicant contended that the removal order was not provided to him initially and that he sought information via the RTI Act in 2011, subsequently filing an appeal in 2012 which remained undecided

The respondents opposed the application, arguing that the applicant failed to explain the day-to-day delay and that the statutory limitation period under the Central Administrative Tribunal Act is one year

1. Whether the applicant provided sufficient and cogent reasons to condone the inordinate delay of 13 years in filing the Original Application

2. Whether the Original Application is liable to be dismissed as time-barred under Section 21 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985

Section 21 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, which prescribes a one-year limitation period for filing an O.A. from the date the cause of action arises

doctrine of delay and laches as articulated in Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. T.T. Murali Babu (2014), which establishes that a litigant who is "indolent" or "sleeps over his rights" is not entitled to equitable relief

guidelines from Pathapati Subba Reddy v. Special Deputy Collector (2024), which emphasize that while Section 5 of the Limitation Act is construed liberally, it cannot defeat the substantive law of limitation where there is inordinate delay, negligence, or lack of due diligence

The Tribunal observed that the applicant approached the court after an unexplained delay of 13 years

The court found the applicant's explanation—that he did not receive the order and was pursuing RTI queries—unsatisfactory, noting that he failed to provide a day-to-day explanation for the delay as required by law

The court reasoned that law does not permit a litigant to "rise like a phoenix" at their own leisure

Applying the Pathapati Subba Reddy guidelines, the Tribunal determined that the merits of the case are irrelevant when a party fails to establish "sufficient cause" for a delay characterized by negligence and a lack of due diligence

Since the applicant produced no documentary evidence regarding his RTI or 2011 affidavit, the court held that no plausible reason for the delay was established

Consequently, Original Application No. 1337/2015 was dismissed as time-barred under the statutory provisions of the CAT Act

No order was made as to costs