Liberty to approach the appropriate forum does not condone inordinate delay or revive stale post-retirement service claims.

The applicant was appointed as a Junior Engineer (Civil) in NDMC in 1978 and served on deputation as Technical Officer (Works), equivalent to Assistant Engineer (Civil), in KVS from 7 May 1985 to 3 May 1990. He was granted a higher pay scale in 1995 and promoted as Assistant Engineer on an ad hoc basis on 5 July 1996.

The applicant sought inclusion of his deputation period as qualifying service for further promotion. Pursuant to directions of the Delhi High Court, NDMC rejected this claim by a speaking order dated 24 February 1997.

The applicant challenged the rejection along with other service-related grievances before the Delhi High Court; the matter was transferred to the Tribunal as T.A. No. 188/2009.

In W.P. (C) No. 588/2025, the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s claim concerning deputation computation on 16 July 2025, granting liberty to approach the appropriate forum at the first instance and requesting expeditious consideration in view of his age and disability.

The applicant, who retired as an Executive Engineer in 2016, filed the present Original Application in 2025 along with M.A. No. 4385/2025 seeking condonation of the delay.

NDMC opposed the application, contending that the challenge related to an order passed in 1997 and that there was no explanation for the delay between retirement in 2016 and filing in 2025.

Whether the applicant had shown sufficient and cogent cause for condonation of the extraordinary delay in filing the Original Application against the order dated 24 February 1997?

Whether the applicant could, after retirement and after an inordinate lapse of time, reopen the claim for counting deputation service for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer?

Whether the liberty granted by the Supreme Court to approach the appropriate forum automatically displaced the principles of limitation, delay and laches?

The Tribunal applied the settled principles governing delay and laches in service matters, under which a stale claim cannot ordinarily be revived after an unexplained and inordinate delay.

It relied on Government of West Bengal & Ors. v. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3512, for the principle that promotion ordinarily operates from the actual date of assumption of duties and not retrospectively from the date of vacancy or recommendation; retrospective promotion or consequential financial benefits after retirement are impermissible in the absence of an express service-rule basis.

The Tribunal further held that liberty granted by the Supreme Court to approach the competent forum does not, by itself, condone delay or confer jurisdiction to reopen a stale claim.

The Tribunal found that the impugned order was passed on 24 February 1997, nearly three decades before the filing of the present OA.

Although the applicant had pursued other service grievances, the specific issue concerning computation of deputation service had remained unaddressed for several decades.

The Tribunal considered particularly significant the unexplained period between the applicant’s retirement in 2016 and the filing of the OA in 2025.

His disability, advanced age, and the Supreme Court’s liberty to approach the appropriate forum did not constitute sufficient justification for reviving the claim, especially when the applicant had remained in service until 2016 and had actively litigated before different forums.

Applying the principle in Amal Satpathi, the Tribunal also concluded that the applicant, having never served as Superintending Engineer and having already retired, could not seek retrospective promotion or related financial benefits at this belated stage.

Entertaining the claim would effectively reopen a service dispute that had become stale and settled by delay and laches.

The Tribunal therefore confined its decision to the question of condonation of delay and did not grant substantive relief on the deputation-service claim.

The Supreme Court’s grant of liberty to approach the appropriate forum did not automatically condone the delay or revive the stale service claim.

Accordingly, M.A. No. 4385/2025 seeking condonation of delay and the accompanying O.A. No. 3814/2025 were dismissed, with no order as to costs; any pending miscellaneous application was also disposed of.