Facts
The applicants, three retired BSNL employees, filed an Original Application (O.A.) seeking directions for the respondents to decide their representations dated 10.11.2020, legal notice dated 19.07.2025, and reminder dated 08.11.2025.
Source reference: p.2They had initially submitted representations following orders passed by the respondents on 20.06.2019, requesting consideration for promotion on the grounds that criminal cases registered against them had been closed.
Source reference: p.2The respondents, on advance notice, opposed the prayer, stating that the issue involved CBI cases from 1988 and 1989 concerning allegations of corruption.
Source reference: p.3The respondents contended that the O.A. was an abuse of the process of law, as numerous representations were submitted between 2018 and 2024, but the applicants retired on superannuation on 30.06.2024, and the present O.A. was filed only in 2026, making it a stale claim.
Source reference: p.3Issues
1. Whether the present Original Application, filed in 2026 after the applicants' superannuation in 2024 regarding matters dating back to 1988-1989, is barred by gross delay and laches?
Source reference: p.3, p.42. Whether directing the respondents to decide the pending representations would amount to reviving a stale claim for promotion, which is not maintainable under settled principles of service jurisprudence?
Source reference: p.3, p.4Law Applied
The court applied the principle that mere submission of representations does not extend the period of limitation or revive a stale claim.
Source reference: p.4It further relied on the doctrine of delay and laches, which dictates that a claim asserted after an inordinate and unexplained delay should not be entertained, especially when it would require reopening matters that are several decades old.
Source reference: p.3-4The court also implicitly acknowledged the principle that claims for promotion after superannuation regarding stale matters are generally not permissible in service jurisprudence.
Source reference: p.3Reasoning
The Tribunal noted that the cause of action, if any, arose long ago, and the applicants approached the Tribunal after an inordinate lapse of time.
Source reference: p.4The court emphasized that the mere act of submitting representations does not extend the period of limitation or revive a claim that has become stale due to delay.
Source reference: p.4Given that the applicants had retired from service in 2024 and had accepted their superannuation, entertaining their claim for promotion at this stage would necessitate reopening matters dating back several decades (1988 and 1989 CBI cases), which the court deemed unjustified.
Source reference: p.4The Tribunal concluded that even an innocuous direction to dispose of the representations would indirectly lead to the revival of a stale claim, causing undue hardship to the respondents who would be forced to revisit very old records.
Source reference: p.3, p.4Holding
The Tribunal held that the Original Application suffered from gross delay and laches, and the cause of action arose long ago.
Consequently, the Tribunal was not inclined to grant a direction for the disposal of representations, as it would indirectly amount to the revival of a stale claim which is not maintainable.
Source reference: p.4Thus, the present Original Application was dismissed, and any pending M.A.s were also disposed of.
Source reference: p.4No order as to costs was made.
Source reference: p.4Original Court PDF
Devaki Nandan & Ors. v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) & Ors. [O.A. No. 750/2026, M.A. No. 956/2026]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in