Stale claims lacking diligence are dismissed; repeated representations do not revive cause of action.

The applicants, who were appointed as Postal Assistants under the Reserve Trained Pool (RTP) scheme in Dhenkanal Division in 1983/1985, sought regularization of their services from their initial appointment date for financial upgradation under the TBOP & MACP Scheme.

Their services were subsequently regularized effective December 1983/1986.

They contended that similarly situated employees had previously approached various Benches of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), including Hyderabad Bench in O.A. Nos. 779 and 780 of 2013, which directed regularization from the date of initial appointment and counting of RTP service for financial upgradation.

The applicants submitted representations on July 13, 2015, and March 29, 2019, but received no response, leading them to file the present O.A. along with MA 697/2020 for condonation of delay.

The respondents argued that the RTP service was on an hourly wage basis against exigencies and could not be counted for service benefits like promotions or financial upgradations.

They also highlighted that a similar O.A. No. 534 of 2019 [Beenaya Kumar Pradhan & Ors Vs UOI & Ors] before the same Bench was dismissed on December 7, 2023, on grounds of delay and laches.

Whether the applicants' services rendered as Reserve Trained Pool (RTP) candidates should be regularized from their initial appointment date for the purpose of granting financial upgradation under the TBOP & MACP Scheme?

Whether the O.A. is barred by delay and laches?

The law of limitation is based on the equitable principle that equity helps the diligent and not the indolent, and courts will refuse to entertain stale claims on the ground of public policy.

Delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside and can be fatal in most circumstances.

Inordinate and unexplained delay or laches is a ground to refuse relief irrespective of the merit of the claim.

Repeated representations neither give rise nor revive the cause of action, if it had already arisen in the past, citing State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors Versus Rajmati Singh, Civil Appeal No. 9329 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 28128 of 2017).

The principle that delay should not deter belated claims where the claim is for a recurring cause of action (citing UOI & Ors. VS Tarsem Singh, (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 765) does not apply to non-recurring causes such as retrospective regularization.

The Tribunal found that the applicants were regularized in 1985-86 and made their primary representation seeking retrospective regularization and financial upgradation only in 2018, which was after a lapse of more than three decades.

This extensive delay was not adequately explained, and no reason was provided for their lack of vigilance during this long period.

The Tribunal cited numerous Supreme Court judgments emphasizing that courts should not overlook inordinate delay, as it can affect others' ripened rights and unsettle settled matters.

The argument that delay should be condoned because the claim was for financial benefits (recurring cause of action) was rejected, as the applicants first needed retrospective regularization, which was not a recurring cause of action.

The Tribunal noted that retrospective regularization at such a late stage would have significant adverse repercussions, potentially upsetting promotional effects and affecting the rights of non-parties.

The Tribunal further noted that a similar O.A. No. 534/2019 by similarly situated individuals had already been dismissed by the same Bench on the grounds of delay and laches, and no new or distinct material was presented in the current O.A. to warrant a different outcome.

The application for condonation of delay (MA 617/2019 cited in text of OA 534/2019, which is analogous to MA 697/2020 in the instant OA) was dismissed.

Consequently, the O.A. was dismissed, and parties were directed to bear their own costs.