Stale claims cannot be revived by subsequent representations or directions to consider such representations.

The applicant, a retired Central Health Services officer (GDMO sub-cadre), retired on 30.04.2010

He sought the benefit of Non-Functional Upgradation (NFU) to the Higher Administrative Grade (HAG) with retrospective effect from 03.12.2009, asserting that juniors had received the same

He first represented for this benefit in 2018

Following a previous Tribunal direction in O.A. No. 61/1002/2020, the respondents issued an order on 31.12.2020, stating his assessment was deferred by the Screening Committee due to the non-availability of his ACR for 2005-06 and a "below benchmark" grading for 2006-07

The applicant challenged this deferral, arguing that because he retired from the Department of Posts, the referral to CGHS Chandigarh for records was illegal and that NFU is a financial benefit not strictly tied to promotional ACR benchmarks

1. Whether the Original Application is barred by the limitation period prescribed under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

2. Whether the grant of Non-Functional Upgradation (NFU) is an automatic financial benefit or if it requires the fulfillment of promotional norms and benchmarks through a Screening Committee

3. Whether the respondents’ act of deferring the applicant's case to complete ACR/APAR formalities was arbitrary or illegal

Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which mandates that an application must be filed within one year of the cause of action, establishing that repeated representations do not extend limitation

DoPT O.M. dated 24.04.2009 and subsequent guidelines which stipulate that even though NFU is non-functional, it is subject to the fulfillment of all promotional norms, including the prescribed "Very Good" benchmark for HAG level at the time of screening

Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be used to revive stale claims or defeat statutory limitation

The Tribunal reasoned that since the applicant retired in 2010 and only approached the Tribunal in 2021, the claim was "hopelessly barred" by limitation, as the cause of action arose a decade prior

The court noted that the 2020 order passed on a representation did not create a fresh cause of action for a stale claim

On merits, the Tribunal rejected the applicant's contention that ACRs are irrelevant for NFU; it found that under DoPT guidelines, the Screening Committee must assess whether an officer meets the "Very Good" benchmark for HAG

Since the applicant had a "Good" grading (below benchmark) in 2006-07 and a missing ACR for 2005-06, the respondents were legally justified in deferring the case to allow for the disclosure of the ACR and potential representation by the applicant

The court also found the administrative coordination between the Department of Posts and CGHS for record-retrieval to be a procedural necessity rather than an arbitrary act

The Tribunal dismissed the Original Application, holding that the applicant has no enforceable right to NFU without satisfying the prescribed procedural and benchmark requirements, and the impugned order dated 31.12.2020 was a reasoned decision that correctly deferred the case for completion of records rather than rejecting it outright