Karnataka HC Rejects Centre’s Nearly 3-Year-Late Challenge To Order To Consider Retired Engineer’s ₹5,400 Grade-Pay Claim

The respondent, a retired Junior Scientific Engineer, had obtained an order from the Central Administrative Tribunal directing the petitioners to consider his claim for non-functional financial upgradation to Grade Pay of ₹5,400 with effect from 5 October 2014 and consequential benefits.

The Tribunal’s order was dated 23 November 2023, but the petitioners filed the writ petition on 30 July 2026, nearly three years later.

To explain the delay, they relied on the time taken for administrative decision-making and filed an affidavit setting out the movement of the file between offices; the High Court found that the affidavit provided no bona fide explanation for the delay.

Article 226 prescribes no fixed limitation period, but a writ petition must be brought within a reasonable time; delay and laches may justify refusal of discretionary relief, particularly where the delay is unexplained and causes prejudice.

In Shivamma (Dead) by LRs v. Karnataka Housing Board, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969, the Supreme Court held that governmental litigants receive no preferential treatment in condonation of delay and that administrative inefficiency or procedural delay is not, without a bona fide and cogent explanation, sufficient cause.

In Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 551, the Supreme Court reiterated that unexplained delay and laches can alone warrant dismissal of a writ petition under Article 226.

The Court also acknowledged the general principles in the authorities cited by the petitioners concerning a liberal approach to delay, but treated them as distinguishable on their facts.

The petitioners’ explanation consisted principally of the movement of the file between the Bengaluru and New Delhi offices over nearly three years. The Court held that a chronology of file movement, without reasons demonstrating bona fides or diligence,