Pendency of representations neither extends the limitation period nor revives stale claims in service matters.

The applicant, a retired Assistant Engineer (Civil) from the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC), filed an Original Application (OA) in 2025 challenging a punishment order dated June 30, 2019.

The impugned order imposed a penalty of a permanent cut in the applicant's pension under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

Along with the OA, the applicant filed a Miscellaneous Application (MA) seeking condonation of a 433-day delay.

The applicant contended that the delay was due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the pendency of a representation dated November 29, 2022, to which the respondents never replied.

The respondents opposed the MA, arguing that even after accounting for COVID-19 limitation extensions, the OA should have been filed by June 2022, and that since the order was passed under Presidential powers, no statutory appeal existed to justify the wait for a response to a representation.

1. Whether the applicant established "sufficient cause" to condone the substantial delay in filing the Original Application under the Administrative Tribunals Act.

2. Whether the pendency of a non-statutory representation serves to extend the limitation period or revive a stale claim.

The court applied Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, noting that orders passed in exercise of Presidential powers do not admit statutory appeals or reviews.

It relied on the Supreme Court precedents in C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining and Union of India v. M.K. Sarkar, which established that the mere filing or pendency of representations does not extend the period of limitation nor revive a stale claim.

the court cited P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, affirming that service matters must be agitated within a reasonable time and highly belated claims should not be entertained.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay between the 2019 impugned order and the 2025 filing.

The court reasoned that since the order was final and lacked a statutory remedy of appeal or review, the applicant was required to approach the Tribunal within the prescribed limitation period rather than relying on unproductive representations.

The Bench observed that while the COVID-19 pandemic provided a general extension of limitation, the applicant remained inactive well beyond that extended window, only filing the OA in 2025.

Applying the cited precedents, the Tribunal determined that entertaining such a belated claim would cause undue prejudice to the respondents as the matter had already attained finality.

Consequently, the Miscellaneous Application (MA No. 2010/2025) for condonation of delay was dismissed. As a result, the Original Application (OA No. 738/2025) was also dismissed as being barred by limitation.