Stale claims for retrospective monetary benefits filed after a prolonged period are barred by limitation.

The respondents were engaged as Project Casual Labourers between 1972 and 1982.

Pursuant to the Ministry of Railways Circular dated 11.09.1986 — issued in compliance with the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. K.G. Radhakrishna Panikar — they were granted temporary status in 1983, subsequently absorbed into the permanent establishment, and retired from service.

One S. Thirunavukkarasu had obtained a favourable direction for retrospective conferment of temporary status with monetary arrears (W.P.No.8972 of 2006, dated 14.07.2009), triggering a line of similar claims by retired employees.

CAT had dismissed the Original Applications of B. Vadivelu and M. Raju @ Raji, and the Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 21.10.2019 in W.P.Nos.29791 & 29793 of 2019, held that Thirunavukkarasu could not be followed as a precedent, noting it was rendered on peculiar facts and that the 1986 Circular had not been brought to the earlier Benches' attention.

Despite this, CAT allowed subsequent OAs (O.A.Nos.1628 of 2023 and 1315–1320 of 2019) by orders dated 03.02.2023 and 10.11.2023, relying on Thirunavukkarasu, prompting the present writ petitions by the Union of India.

1. Whether CAT could entertain Original Applications filed belatedly — on the verge of retirement or after retirement — seeking monetary benefits with retrospective effect from the date of conferment of temporary status, in light of the limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

2. Whether CAT was justified in granting relief by treating Thirunavukkarasu v. Union of India as a precedent, notwithstanding the Division Bench ruling in Vadivelu that it could not be so followed

Section 21(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which bars the Tribunal from admitting an application beyond one year from the date of the final order, or beyond one year from the expiry of six months following an appeal or representation left undecided.

The Division Bench decision in B. Vadivelu v. Union of India (W.P.Nos.29791 & 29793 of 2019, dated 21.10.2019), which held that S. Thirunavukkarasu v. Union of India (W.P.No.8972 of 2006) was a direction issued in the peculiar facts of that case and cannot be cited as precedent.

Railway Circular dated 11.09.1986 — a policy decision implementing Union of India v. K.G. Radhakrishna Panikar, 1998 SCC (L) 1281 — is subject only to limited judicial review and stood unchallenged.

Doctrine that while courts may condone delay of a reasonable period, prolonged or enormous delay is "uncondonable," and condonation of such delay to award retrospective monetary arrears would cause prejudice to the public exchequer.

Applying Section 21 of the 1985 Act to the undisputed facts, the Court held that the OAs were ex facie time-barred, having been filed on the verge of retirement or after retirement, decades after the cause of action arose.

The claims were additionally construable as "stale" because the respondents, having been absorbed as permanent employees, had their qualifying service reckoned and their terminal and pensionary benefits settled; a demand for monetary benefits retrospectively from the date of temporary status could not survive.

On the question of precedent, the Court reasoned that CAT had committed error because, prior to the impugned orders, the Division Bench in Vadivelu — arising from CAT's own dismissal of identical claims — had expressly held that Thirunavukkarasu shall not be followed as precedent in perpetuity; there existed no changed circumstances justifying CAT's divergent view in allowing OAs filed in 2019 and 2023.

Even assuming condonation of delay, the Court held such condonation ran counter to settled principles: the delay of 30 to 40 years was uncondonable, and granting retrospective arrears spanning that period would prejudice the exchequer, rendering the claims untenable.

Thirunavukkarasu could not be followed as a precedent, as settled by the Division Bench in Vadivelu.

Accordingly, the writ petitions were allowed; the impugned orders of CAT in O.A.Nos.1628 of 2023, 1315, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1319 and 1320 of 2019 were set aside, with no order as to costs, and the connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed.