Retired Film Editor’s ACP/MACP Pay Claim Dismissed As Time-Barred By Chennai CAT

In brief

The question

1. Whether the applicant’s claim was barred by delay and laches, where he sought ACP benefits after MACP benefits had been granted and approached the Tribunal following rejection of a belated representation

The court held

The Tribunal held that the Original Application was barred by delay and laches and dismissed it on that ground.

It also directed

No order was made as to costs.

01Facts

The applicant served as Film Editor in the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), initially on deputation and later by permanent absorption effective 22 December 1994.

He retired on 31 May 2014.

After receiving MACP benefits in 2015, he sought financial upgradation under the earlier ACP Scheme and a consequential pay refixation.

His representation dated 9 March 2015 was rejected by order dated 16 February 2018, following which he filed this Original Application.

The Tribunal’s consideration focused on delay and laches

¶ 2, 10–11, 15

02Issues

i.1. Whether the applicant’s claim was barred by delay and laches, where he sought ACP benefits after MACP benefits had been granted and approached the Tribunal following rejection of a belated representation

¶ 10–15

ii.2. Whether the later rejection of the applicant’s representation gave rise to a fresh cause of action or extended the limitation period

¶ 11, 14–15

03Law Applied

The Tribunal applied the principle that a belated representation concerning a stale or dead claim does not create a fresh cause of action or extend limitation; delay must be assessed from the original cause of action, not from the rejection of the representation.

It relied on The Chief Executive Officer & Others v. S. Lalitha & Others, 2025 INSC 565, which held that an employee aggrieved by the grant of MACP benefits instead of ACP benefits must approach the appropriate forum within time and cannot revive the claim through a belated representation.

¶ 13

It also relied on M.K. Sarkar v. Union of India, 2009 INSC 1288, concerning stale claims and the need to assess limitation by reference to the original cause of action.

¶ 14

The Tribunal noted that the MACP Scheme superseded the ACP Scheme, subject to any applicable scheme provisions or transitional entitlements.

¶ 12

04Reasoning

The applicant’s grievance concerned the financial upgradations granted under MACP rather than the earlier ACP Scheme.

The Tribunal found that he had represented in 2015 and approached the Tribunal in 2018, and held that he should have challenged the alleged denial within the prescribed period from when the cause of action arose.

Applying S. Lalitha and M.K. Sarkar, it concluded that the representation’s rejection did not restart limitation or revive the claim.

It therefore disposed of the application on limitation grounds without determining the substantive correctness of the applicant’s pay-fixation or ACP/MACP entitlement

¶ 11–16