Repeated representations do not extend limitation; stale promotion claims are barred by delay and laches.

The applicant, a Technical Supervisor (Radiology) at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, claimed retrospective promotion to the post of Senior Radiographer against an SC-reserved roster point with effect from 1 October 1997, along with consequential seniority and benefits.

He alleged that his case was not considered in the DPC held on 8 September 1997.

He was subsequently promoted as Senior Radiographer with effect from 29 April 2005 and later promoted as Technical Supervisor (Radiology) on 29 June 2022.

The applicant made several representations and reminders between 1997 and 2023.

The respondents issued Office Memoranda dated 3 July 2008 and 2 September 2009 disposing of or rejecting his claim.

He filed the present Original Application on 4 April 2025, along with an application seeking condonation of delay.

The respondents opposed the application on the ground that the claim was barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The Tribunal separately allowed M.A. No. 3274/2025 for taking additional documents on record.

Whether the Original Application filed on 4 April 2025, seeking retrospective promotion from 1 October 1997, was barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985?

Whether the applicant had shown sufficient cause for condonation of the delay of more than 27 years in approaching the Tribunal?

The Tribunal applied Sections 19, 20 and 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, particularly Section 21(1), which requires an application challenging a final order to be filed within one year, and Section 21(3), which permits delayed admission only where sufficient cause is established.

The Tribunal held that repeated representations, when not recognised as a statutory remedy, do not extend or revive limitation, relying on S.S. Rathore v. State of M.P., AIR 1990 SC 10 and State of Tamil Nadu v. Seshachalam, (2017) 10 SCC 137.

It further relied on P.S. Sadasiva Swamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 2271, holding that promotion claims should ordinarily be brought within six months or, at most, one year after the promotion of a junior.

Shibha Shankar Mohapatra v. State of Orissa, (2010) 12 SCC 47, concerning the impermissibility of reopening settled seniority after an unreasonable period.

D.C.S. Negi v. Union of India, (2018) 16 SCC 721, requiring the Tribunal to examine limitation before admitting an application.

Balwant Singh v. Jagdish Singh, (2010) 8 SCC 685, concerning the consequences of negligence and failure to establish sufficient cause.

The Tribunal treated 8 September 1997, when the applicant was allegedly not considered by the DPC, as the original cause of action and 29 April 2005, when he was promoted prospectively, as a further relevant date.

The applicant’s claim was also finally addressed through the respondents’ Office Memoranda dated 3 July 2008 and 2 September 2009.

Under Section 21(1), he was required to approach the Tribunal within one year of the relevant final order or otherwise satisfy the Tribunal under Section 21(3) that sufficient cause prevented timely filing.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had waited until 4 April 2025—more than 27 years after the original grievance and many years after the departmental responses—without providing any satisfactory explanation for the delay.

The repeated representations, including the representation dated 3 October 2023, could not revive the extinguished limitation period or create a continuing cause of action.

The Tribunal also considered that reopening promotion and seniority after such a prolonged period would unsettle an otherwise settled service position.

M.A. No. 2445/2025 seeking condonation of delay was dismissed, and consequently O.A. No. 1356/2025 was dismissed on the grounds of delay and laches.

M.A. No. 3274/2025 for taking additional documents on record was allowed.

There was no order as to costs.