Relief granted to similarly situated employees does not create a fresh cause of action for stale claims.

The applicant, an Assistant Loco Pilot in the South Western Railway, was removed from service on 28.11.2014 following a disciplinary inquiry for violating GSR Rules

On appeal, the Appellate Authority reduced the punishment to a reduction in pay for ten years and treated the intervening period as "dies-non" on 09.02.2015

The applicant’s revision petition against this order was dismissed on 05.10.2016

Subsequently, the applicant filed a review petition on 13.11.2017, which remained pending

The applicant eventually filed the present Original Application (OA) on 27.12.2023, along with a Miscellaneous Application (MA) for condonation of a seven-year delay

The applicant argued that the delay should be condoned because he was awaiting a decision on his review and because a similarly situated employee (Anil Gokhale) had obtained relief from the Tribunal in 2019

1. Whether the pendency of a review petition filed without statutory provision or the subsequent granting of relief to a similarly situated employee constitutes "sufficient cause" for condoning a significant delay in filing an Original Application.

The Tribunal emphasized that cause of action arises once departmental remedies are exhausted, and any action taken without a specific provision in the rules (such as a non-statutory review) cannot extend the limitation period

It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in State of U.P. v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava (2015), which held that while identically situated persons should generally receive similar relief, this principle is subject to the exceptions of laches, delay, and acquiescence

Specifically, "fence-sitters" who approach the court only after their counterparts succeed are not entitled to the benefit of such judgments

The Tribunal also applied the doctrine of "delay defeats equity," referencing Munni Bai (Smt.) v. State of M.P. Ors. (2022), which established that a judgment in favor of a vigilant employee does not create a fresh cause of action for those who slept over their rights

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s departmental remedies were exhausted on 05.10.2016 when his revision was dismissed, yet he waited over seven years to approach the Tribunal

The Tribunal rejected the pending review petition as a valid ground for delay, noting that the rules did not provide for such a remedy and the applicant had remained silent for long intervals

Regarding the Anil Gokhale judgment of 2019, the Tribunal determined that the applicant had "acquiesced" to the original punishment and only "woke up" once he noticed another employee’s success

Applying the Arvind Kumar Srivastava precedent, the Tribunal categorized the applicant as a "fence-sitter" whose claim was barred by laches

It reasoned that a judgment in personam does not automatically extend its benefits to others who were not vigilant in prosecuting their own rights

The Tribunal answered the primary issue in the negative, stating that third-party judgments do not revive stale claims

Consequently, MA No. 182/2024 was dismissed

OA No. 197/2024 was dismissed as time-barred

Both parties were ordered to bear their own costs