Subsequent representations cannot revive a stale service claim barred by limitation.

The applicant joined the Delhi Police as a Sub-Inspector in 1968, was promoted to Inspector in 1980, and retired as an Assistant Commissioner of Police on 31 March 2005.

He alleged that a departmental enquiry and censure concerning another officer, SI Partap Singh Rana, were wrongly entered in his service record because of confusion between their names and Range Numbers, delaying his consideration for promotion.

He made later representations, and the Police informed the Central Information Commission that his service record could not be traced; in 2026, the Police sought documents from him in connection with a representation.

In 2026, he approached the Tribunal seeking correction of his service record, retrospective promotion and consequential benefits, an inquiry into the alleged misattribution, and a response to his representations.

Whether the applicant’s challenge to alleged service-record errors and delayed promotion dating from the 1970s and 1980s was barred by limitation and delay and laches.

Whether later representations and the Police communication dated 27 July 2026 revived the stale cause of action.

The Tribunal applied the limitation principle that a representation made after an inordinate delay does not, by itself, revive a cause of action that has already become stale; nor does a subsequent communication issued while considering such a representation create a fresh cause of action concerning the original grievance.

The order cites no specific statutory provision or precedent.

It also considered whether the applicant had provided a sufficient explanation to justify condonation of the delay.

The underlying grievance concerned events between 1974 and 1978, a corrigendum from 1982, and the applicant’s promotion in 1980, yet the OA was instituted only in 2026, long after his retirement in 2005.

The Tribunal held that neither the subsequent representations nor the 2026 request for documents altered the age or nature of the original claim.

The applicant had not provided a sufficient or legally acceptable explanation for the extraordinary delay; the Tribunal therefore declined to examine the merits of the alleged misattribution or service-record error.

It dismissed the OA at the admission stage, without examining the merits, and made no order as to costs.