Stale claims challenging promotion cannot be revived by repeated representations or belated appeals.

The applicant, a Railway employee working as Private Secretary to the Chief Passenger Transportation Manager, sought promotion to the post/grade of APO/AWO at par with employees promoted under the memorandum dated 21.12.2011, together with consequential financial benefits. He also sought quashing of the rejection orders dated 14.10.2014, 27.11.2014, 17.12.2014 and 30.06.2021.

The applicant’s name arose in connection with the Group-B/Personnel Combined panel examination: the examination result was published on 30.11.2011, the consolidated provisional panel was issued on 21.12.2011, and a supplementary list of qualified candidates for viva voce was published on 30.09.2014.

He was sent for medical examination on 14.10.2014 and was examined at a private hospital on 08.11.2014. He submitted an appeal on 05.12.2014 against the communication dated 27.11.2014. A further appeal concerning the medical examination was submitted on 19.03.2021 and rejected on 30.06.2021; subsequent representations were made on 08.09.2021 and 07.10.2021.

The present O.A. was filed on 16.11.2021, along with M.A. No. 582/2021 seeking condonation of delay under Section 21(3) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

1. Whether the delay in filing the O.A. should be condoned under Section 21(3) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

2. Whether the applicant was entitled, after approximately ten years, to promotion to the APO/AWO post/grade at par with employees promoted under the memorandum dated 21.12.2011.

3. Whether the applicant’s claim could be revived or treated as timely by relying on subsequent representations and the rejection order dated 30.06.2021.

The Tribunal applied Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, including the power to condone delay under Section 21(3), while emphasising that delay and laches must be assessed with reference to the original cause of action.

It relied on D.C.S. Negi v. Union of India, [2011 SCC OnLine SC 21], concerning scrutiny of limitation at the threshold.

The Tribunal further applied the principles in B.S. Bajwa v. State of Punjab, (1998) 2 SCC 523, and P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1975) 1 SCC 152, that stale claims concerning seniority and promotion should not ordinarily be entertained because they disturb settled service positions.

Relying on Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar v. State of Maharashtra, (1974) 1 SCC 317, and State of Uttaranchal v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari, (2013) 12 SCC 179, the Tribunal held that repeated representations do not extend limitation or revive a stale cause of action, and that promotional claims must be asserted within a reasonable time.

It also applied the principle that Article 14 does not assist an employee who sleeps over his rights, as recognised in State of T.N. v. Seshachalam, (2007) 10 SCC 137, and State of M.P. v. Nandlal, AIR 1987 SC 251.

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s grievance arose substantially in 2011–2014, when the promotional panel was issued, the supplementary list was published, and the applicant’s medical-related representations were rejected.

Although the O.A. was filed within the period calculated from the rejection dated 30.06.2021, the relief sought would unsettle promotions, seniority and administrative arrangements existing for approximately ten years.

Applying the rule that limitation and laches are determined from the original cause of action, the Tribunal held that the applicant could not revive the stale claim merely by submitting repeated representations or by relying on their later disposal.

The potential impact on other employees and the settled promotional structure further weighed against condonation, since granting relief could disturb vested service rights and create administrative uncertainty.

The COVID-19 exclusion period did not cure the underlying delay arising from the much earlier cause of action.

It refused to condone the delay, holding that the claim for promotion and consequential seniority-related benefits was stale and that the subsequent representations and rejection order did not revive it.

M.A. No. 582/2021 was dismissed, and consequently O.A. No. 260/00533 of 2021 was dismissed. No order as to costs was made.