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

The applicants (legal heirs of the deceased original applicant, Rajbir) filed a Miscellaneous Application (M.A.) seeking condonation of a 2889-day delay in filing an Original Application (O.A.) for reinstatement in service

The original applicant claimed to be a Seasonal Anti-Malaria Lascar (SAML).

He alleged that he personally visited the respondents' office multiple times since 2012 and was assured of reinstatement

Following a legal notice in 2012, he filed a Civil Suit, which was dismissed on 23.08.2018 for lack of jurisdiction

The respondents contended that the SAML scheme was discontinued in 2007 and that the applicant was merely a daily wager engaged in 2009, two years after the scheme’s cessation

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

2. Whether the pursuit of a remedy in a wrong forum (Civil Court) and alleged oral assurances from officials constitute a valid ground for condoning the delay.

The Tribunal primarily relied on the principle of "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

Shivamma (Dead) by LRs v. Karnataka Housing Board Ors. (2025 INSC 1104), which held that administrative lethargy, inaction, or a casual approach cannot constitute "sufficient cause" and that limitation laws are founded on the principle of finality in litigation

Pathapati Subba Reddy v. The Special Deputy Collector regarding the strict application of limitation periods to prevent the misuse of the legal process

The Tribunal found the delay of 2889 days to be "inordinate by any standard"

The Tribunal observed that while the applicant claimed to be pursuing the matter in a Civil Court, there was no explanation for the substantial period of inaction between the arising of the cause of action (2005) and the filing of the Civil Suit

The Tribunal noted that the applicant's claims of "assurances" by officials were bald assertions unsupported by documentary evidence or specific details of the officials involved

Applying the Shivamma precedent, the Tribunal emphasized that courts must not condone delays on "frivolous and superficial grounds" and that the applicant failed to show a bona fide, diligent, or continuous pursuit of the remedy

The Tribunal further noted that the SAML scheme had already been discontinued before the applicant's alleged engagement in 2009, making the demand for employment baseless

Consequently, the M.A. for condonation of delay was dismissed, and the O.A. was dismissed as "hopelessly barred by limitation"

All pending applications were disposed of with no order as to costs