Repeated Representations Cannot Revive Stale Claims or Extend Limitation Periods for Retrospective Service Benefits

The applicant was appointed as a Junior Clerk in 1971

He retired on superannuation on 30.04.2006 in the pay scale of Rs. 2610-3540

He claimed that despite 35 years of service, he was never granted a single promotion and was entitled to three in-situ promotions under SRO 14 of 1996 (Higher Standard Pay Scale Scheme) effective from 1995 and 1998

The Accountant General had noted the lack of pay regulation in 2007

The respondents contended that the application was barred by inordinate delay, as the applicant retired in 2006 but filed the claim in 2021

They also alleged an outstanding recovery of Rs. 49,383/- against the applicant

1. Whether the Original Application is maintainable in light of a 14-15 year delay in approaching the Tribunal after retirement

2. Whether the submission of repeated representations extends the statutory period of limitation under the Administrative Tribunals Act

The court primarily applied Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which mandates that an application must be filed within the prescribed limitation period from the date of the cause of action

It relied on the settled legal principle that repeated representations do not revive a "dead" or stale cause of action nor do they extend the limitation period

Furthermore, the court emphasized the doctrine of "delay and laches," asserting that finality in administrative matters is a matter of sound public policy to prevent the unsettling of long-standing financial positions

The Tribunal found that the cause of action arose in 1995 and 1998 when the in-situ promotions became due, or at the latest, in 2007 when the Accountant General flagged the pay scale discrepancy

The applicant waited approximately 14 years from that 2007 notification and 15 years from his retirement before filing this O.A. in 2021

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's reliance on various representations made between 2010 and 2018, noting that a litigant cannot keep a cause of action alive indefinitely through correspondence

The Bench reasoned that granting relief after decades would improperly require the reopening of ancient service records and financial budgets, which is prejudicial to administrative stability

The court directly answered that the claim was not maintainable due to the unexplained 15-year delay

Consequently, the O.A. was dismissed without a final adjudication on the merits of the in-situ promotion or the disputed recovery

No order as to costs was made