Repeated representations on a decided cause of action do not extend the statutory period of limitation.

The applicant, an officer in the Department of Telecommunications, was declared "unfit" for regular promotion to Junior Administrative Grade (JAG) for the 2009–2010 vacancy year due to below-benchmark APARs

Following a 2010 DoPT Office Memorandum (OM) regarding the disclosure of gradings, the applicant’s 2005–2006 APAR was upgraded from "Good" to "Very Good" on 21.01.2011

Consequently, he was promoted to JAG for the 2010–2011 vacancy year effective 13.05.2011

The applicant subsequently sought a Review DPC for retrospective promotion to the 2009–2010 vacancy year. His representations were rejected on 18.04.2016 and again on 20.01.2021, with the department citing the potential disturbance of third-party rights

The applicant filed the present Original Application (O.A.) on 10.02.2025, along with a Miscellaneous Application (M.A.) seeking condonation of a 1032-day delay

1. Whether the applicant demonstrated "sufficient cause" to condone the delay of 1032 days in filing the O.A.

2. Whether the repeated submission of representations and the nature of the claim for retrospective promotion constitute a "continuous cause of action" that exempts the applicant from the prescribed limitation period

The Tribunal applied the statutory limitation period prescribed under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which generally requires an application to be filed within one year from the date of the final order

It further applied the principle that repeated representations do not extend the period of limitation nor do they create a continuous cause of action when a definitive rejection has already been communicated

The court also noted the DoPT OM dated 13.04.2010, which governed the disclosure of below-benchmark gradings for future DPCs

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's contention that the matter involved a "continuous cause of action"

The Bench reasoned that the applicant’s grievances regarding his 2009–2010 promotion were explicitly addressed and rejected by the respondents as early as April 2016, and once more in January 2021

The Tribunal observed that the applicant was legally obligated to approach the Tribunal within the one-year limitation period following the rejection dated 20.01.2021

Since the O.A. was not filed until 10.02.2025, and the M.A. failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the intervening period, the Tribunal concluded that no "sufficient cause" existed to justify the 1032-day delay

Consequently, O.A. No. 674/2025 was disposed of as barred by limitation