Stale claims for counting pre-appointment training as qualifying service are barred by delay and laches.

The applicant was appointed as Assistant Superintendent Telegraph Traffic (later Junior Telecom Officer/JTO) in the Department of Telecom on 24.07.1987

Before his regular appointment, he underwent 39 weeks of pre-appointment training from 11.03.1985 to 08.11.1985

A gap of approximately 20 months occurred between the training and appointment due to administrative delays regarding post availability

The applicant was absorbed into BSNL on 01.10.2000 and retired under the BSNL VRS-2019 Scheme on 31.01.2020

In December 2019, shortly before retirement, he requested that the 39-week training period be counted as qualifying service for pension

This request was rejected by the respondents via communication dated 18.12.2021 on the grounds of excessive interruption/break and lack of records

1. Whether the Original Application is barred by limitation, delay, and laches given that the grievance arose 32 years prior to the filing

2. Whether the pre-appointment training period of 39 weeks can be counted as qualifying service under Rule 22 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, despite an interruption exceeding the normal joining time

Rule 22 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, and the Government of India instructions thereunder, provide that pre-appointment training may count as qualifying service provided any interruption between training and regular appointment does not exceed the admissible joining time

The Tribunal relied on the principle that stale claims cannot be revived by subsequent clarifications, citing Union of India v. M.K. Sarkar and Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining

Article 14 does not envisage "negative equality"—parity cannot be claimed based on erroneous or distinguishable orders passed in other administrative circles

The Tribunal first addressed the procedural delay, noting that the applicant’s cause of action accrued in 1987, yet he remained silent for over three decades

It rejected the applicant’s contention that BSNL VRS-2019 clarifications created a fresh cause of action, holding that a clarification cannot resuscitate a dead claim

On merits, the Tribunal found that the 20-month interruption between training and appointment far exceeded the "normal joining time" required by Rule 22 instructions

The applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove he was identically situated to employees in the Kerala or UP (West) circles, especially since the UP circle order he relied upon had been cancelled

The Tribunal held that administrative delays of the 1980s cannot be litigated in 2022 when records are likely unavailable

The applicant failed to establish a legal right to count the training period as the interruption exceeded permissible limits under statutory rules

The court upheld the impugned order dated 18.12.2021 as legal and valid, refusing to grant relief based on mere sympathy or equitable considerations. No order as to costs