Inordinate delay is not condonable absent sufficient cause and continuous diligence in pursuing legal remedies.

The applicant was employed as a Seasonal Anti-Malaria Lascar (SAML).

On 04.04.2005, his services were terminated and his name was deleted from the seniority list following a police verification report indicating a pending criminal case.

He was subsequently acquitted of all charges on 18.08.2006.

The applicant claimed to have approached the respondents for reinstatement thereafter, eventually issuing a legal notice on 06.08.2012, which the respondents rejected on 05.10.2012.

The applicant then filed a civil suit, which was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on 08.08.2018.

Consequently, the applicant approached the Tribunal in 2019 with a Miscellaneous Application (M.A.) seeking condonation of a 2889-day delay in filing the Original Application (O.A.).

1. Whether the applicant established "sufficient cause" to condone the inordinate delay of 2889 days in filing the O.A.

2. Whether the period spent pursuing a remedy before the Civil Court can be excluded under the principles of bona fide litigation in a wrong forum.

The court emphasized that while a liberal approach may be adopted to advance justice, the applicant must demonstrate "sufficient cause" explaining the entire period of delay.

It relied heavily on the precedent in Shivamma (Dead) by LRs v. Karnataka Housing Board Ors. (2025 INSC 1104), which established that administrative lethargy, inaction, or a casual approach does not constitute sufficient cause, and that limitation laws are intended to ensure the finality of litigation.

The court also noted that the State and private litigants stand on equal footing regarding the rigors of limitation.

The Tribunal found the delay of 2889 days (nearly eight years) to be enormous and insufficiently explained.

It specifically noted a substantial, unexplained gap of six years between the applicant’s acquittal in 2006 and the issuance of a legal notice in 2012.

The Tribunal rejected the plea that the applicant was diligently pursuing a remedy in the wrong forum (Civil Court), noting he failed to demonstrate that those proceedings were prosecuted in good faith or with reasonable promptitude.

Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that the SAML Scheme itself was discontinued in 2007; therefore, entertaining such a stale claim would improperly unsettle long-settled administrative matters.

Applying the Shivamma standard, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant’s conduct lacked the requisite bona fides and diligence to warrant discretionary relief.

Accordingly, M.A. No. 358/2019 for condonation of delay was dismissed.

Consequently, O.A. No. 288/2019 was dismissed as being hopelessly barred by limitation.

No order was made as to costs.