Recurring service and pension claims may qualify for the limitation exception.

The applicant sought correction of the effective dates and pay fixation for his first and second time-bound promotional scales, consequential revision of pension and related benefits, and arrears with interest.

He had voluntarily retired with effect from 1 April 2004 and relied, among other things, on an NDMC circular dated 18 November 2023.

The applicant sought condonation of delay, contending that the shortfall in pension gave rise to a recurring cause of action; the NDMC opposed the application as barred by Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

After the NDMC stated that the claim was under consideration by an audit committee, the applicant agreed to seek a time-bound decision on his representation dated 14 October 2025, and the NDMC agreed to consider it in accordance with law.

1. Whether the delay in filing the OA should be condoned in light of the applicant’s claim that the pension shortfall was recurring in nature.

2. Whether the Tribunal should adjudicate the applicant’s entitlement to the claimed pay and pension benefits or direct the competent authority to decide his pending representation.

Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 prescribes the limitation applicable to applications before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal relied on Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648, for the principle that a recurring cause of action may constitute an exception to the ordinary principles of limitation.

The Tribunal also proceeded under Section 19 of the Act, under which the applicant had invoked its jurisdiction.

It directed the authority to decide the representation in accordance with law, without expressing any view on the merits.

The Tribunal accepted that the claim concerned time-bound promotional scales and consequential pension revision, which it treated as recurring in nature, and on that basis condoned the delay in filing the OA.

It did not determine whether the applicant was substantively entitled to the claimed scales or pension.

In view of the parties’ submissions and the applicant’s request for a time-bound decision on his representation, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to leave the merits to the competent authority, subject to a reasoned and speaking order.

It directed the respondents or competent authority to decide the applicant’s representation dated 14 October 2025 by a reasoned and speaking order, preferably within six weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order; if found entitled, the applicant’s benefits were to be disbursed forthwith.

The OA was disposed of without any opinion on the merits, and there was no order as to costs.