Successive representations and recurring pension claims cannot revive stale claims or justify extraordinary delay.

The applicant, a former Lecturer (English), sought counting of his past service with the MCD from 14.12.1983 to 18.09.1991 for qualifying service, pay fixation, and consequential revision of pension.

He stated that he had submitted a representation dated 20.07.1992 and several subsequent representations, but the respondents did not resolve the issue.

The applicant retired on superannuation on 31.10.2016 and claimed that, upon receiving the PPO dated 16.11.2016, he became aware that the earlier service had not been counted.

He filed the OA along with an application seeking condonation of 11,596 days’ delay, contending that the pensionary grievance gave rise to a recurring cause of action and that he would claim only notional fixation and pensionary benefits, without arrears beyond three years.

The respondents opposed condonation, arguing that the claim was stale and that repeated representations could not extend limitation.

1. Whether the applicant had shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 11,596 days under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

2. Whether the alleged recurring nature of the pensionary claim and the applicant’s subsequent representations could revive or extend limitation in respect of a stale service claim.

The Tribunal applied Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which requires an applicant approaching the Tribunal beyond the prescribed limitation period to establish sufficient cause for condonation of delay.

It applied the principle that a stale claim cannot be revived merely through successive representations or by characterising the grievance as a recurring cause of action where the applicant was aware of the grievance and had an opportunity to challenge it earlier.

The Tribunal also relied on the principle against unsettling long-settled service and pension matters after an extraordinary and unexplained lapse of time.

The Tribunal found that the applicant admittedly knew of the alleged non-counting of his past service as early as 1992 and, at the latest, had an opportunity to act after his retirement in 2016 and issuance of the PPO.

His reliance on repeated representations did not explain the extraordinary delay or extend the statutory limitation period.

The plea of recurring cause of action was rejected because it could not be used to revive a claim relating to service rendered more than three decades earlier and pension fixation undertaken years before the proceedings.

In the Tribunal’s view, entertaining the claim would unsettle matters that had remained settled for a considerable period, and the litigation amounted to “luxury litigation” pursued without sufficient explanation for the delay.

MA No. 919/2026 was dismissed, and consequently OA No. 4591/2025 was also dismissed.

No order as to costs was made.