Unexplained 38-year delay defeats retrospective regularisation claims despite relief granted to similarly situated employees.

The seven applicants, formerly Reserve Trained Pool (RTP) Postal Assistants, were selected and appointed on different dates and were subsequently regularized as Postal Assistants.

After retirement, they sought retrospective regularization from their respective initial dates of appointment, together with consequential benefits including counting of RTP service, TBOP/MACP benefits, and revision of pensionary benefits, relying on decisions granting similar relief to other employees.

The applicants had earlier filed O.A. No. 418 of 2024, which was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh application on 14 May 2024.

They thereafter filed the present Original Application, registered as Diary No. 3579 of 2024, along with M.A. No. 2788 of 2024 seeking condonation of delay.

The respondents opposed condonation, contending that the applicants had approached the Tribunal approximately 38 years after the relevant appointments and had failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay.

Whether the applicants had shown sufficient and satisfactory cause for condoning the approximately 38-year delay in filing the Original Application.

Whether the pending Original Application could be entertained when the delay-condonation application was liable to be rejected under the applicable limitation principles.

Whether reliance on judgments granting benefits to similarly situated employees justified condonation of the applicants’ unexplained delay.

The Tribunal applied Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, under which an Original Application is ordinarily required to be filed within the prescribed limitation period, stated by the respondents as one year from the accrual of the cause of action.

It relied on the principles of delay and laches stated in Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. T.T. Murali Babu, (2014) 4 SCC 108, namely that inordinate and unexplained delay reflects inaction, may prejudice settled rights, and ordinarily disentitles a litigant to equitable relief.

The Tribunal also relied on Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by LRs v. Special Deputy Collector (LA), 2024 SCC OnLine SC 513, which held that limitation serves the public policy of finality; condonation is discretionary; sufficient cause must be established; inordinate delay, negligence, and want of due diligence may justify refusal; and the fact that similarly situated persons obtained relief does not by itself entitle a delayed claimant to condonation.

The Tribunal found that the applicants were challenging their dates of regularization and seeking consequential service and pensionary benefits nearly 38 years after the relevant events.

The applicants’ explanation—that an earlier Original Application had been withdrawn on 14 May 2024—accounted only for the recent procedural history and did not explain the longstanding delay in asserting the alleged entitlement.

Their reliance on judgments in favour of similarly situated employees could not substitute for proof of sufficient cause, particularly in light of Pathapati Subba Reddy.

Applying the principles of limitation, delay, laches, and judicial discretion, the Tribunal concluded that the applicants had not acted with due diligence and that no plausible explanation for the delay had been placed on record.

Since the delay was not condoned, the Tribunal did not examine the substantive merits of the applicants’ regularization and pension claims.

Consequently, Diary No. 3579 of 2024, representing the Original Application, was dismissed as time-barred.

No order as to costs was made, and any pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.