Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
N Yadaiah Kistaiah vs South Central Railway on 6 January, 2026
1
OA.No.314/2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH, HYDERABAD
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.021/00314/2025
ORDER RESERVED ON 11.12.2025
DATE OF ORDER: 06.01.2026
HON'BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
N.Yadaiah Kistaiah, aged 65 years
S/o. Kistaiah, Retd. Track Maintainer
Sanath Nagar, H.No.1-185, Surapalli
Bhonagiri (Mandal)
Yadadri Bhongir Dist., Telangana State. .....Applicant
(By Advocate Sri G.Trinadha Rao)
Vs.
1. Union of India Represented by
The General Manager
South Central Railway
Railnilayam, III Floor
Secunderabad - 500017.
2. The Principal Chief Personnel Officer
South Central Railway
Railnilayam, 4th Floor, Secunderabad.
3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer
Secunderabad Division
South Central Railway
Secunderabad. ....Respondents
(By Advocate Smt. M.Swarna, Addl.CGSC)
*******
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL
PANDIRL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=
Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193
1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD,
Phone=
APALLI
ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179
209a8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba
7768772f41813a4eb590082, E=needhee.2@
gmail.com, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of
this document
Location:
Date: 2026.01.07 11:21:27+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
2
OA.No.314/2025
ORDER
PER: HON'BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
1. The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:
a. ...to call for records leading to and connected with the Proceedings issued in No.SCR/P-SC/249/ENGG/DPG/00408 dated 03.10.2023 issued by the 3rd respondent to declare and set aside the same as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to principles of natural justice and violative article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and b. Consequently direct the respondents to refund the amount already recovered from the applicant's settlement benefits along with interest applicable in PF deposits and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice and the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, as narrated by the applicant, are as follows:
i. The applicant was initially appointed as ELR on 03.03.1980 and was, subsequently, absorbed as Trackman in the Respondent-Railways w.e.f. 01.01.1985. While holding a lien as Trackman IV under the Secunderabad Division, he was engaged, on an ad-hoc basis, as a Vehicle Driver in the Construction Organization, in the pay scale of Rs.950-1500, from 1993 to 2010. Thereafter, he was repatriated to his parent cadre and posted to SNF on 04.01.2011. He superannuated from service on 30.11.2020.
ii. It is stated that, upon retirement, an amount of Rs.3,77,021/- was unilaterally deducted from the applicant's retirement benefits without any prior notice or opportunity of being heard. The said recovery, it is argued, is contrary to Railway Board's Establishment Circular Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL PANDIRL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L= Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= APALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179 209a8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba 7768772f41813a4eb590082, E=needhee.2@ gmail.com, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.07 11:21:27+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 3 OA.No.314/2025 No.RBE 72 of 2016 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors. [(2015) 4 SCC 334], which categorically prohibits recovery of excess payments from retired employees or employees due to retire within one year, particularly, when the alleged excess payment was not due to any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee. It is also contrary to Rule 9 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules.
iii. According to the Applicant, Respondents have acted in an arbitrary and illegal manner by effecting recovery from the applicant's retirement benefits without affording him an opportunity to contest the same. As his persistent persuasion for refund of the alleged excess recovery did not yield any results, the applicant made a representation through the DPG Portal on 18.09.2023, seeking refund of the recovered amount. But the 3rd Respondent, by his order, dt.03.10.2023, rejected the case of the applicant. The applicant further pursued the matter through DPG Registration, dt.22.03.2024, but the 3rd Respondent, by his letter, dt.03.04.2024, rejected the case on untenable grounds.
iv. It is submitted that the recovery made at this point of time, from his pension, caused him a lot of hardship. The applicant has also denied having received any excess payment.
v. The applicant contends that pension is a property as provided under the constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 300A that no person shall be deprived of his property, save by the authority of law. The Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL PANDIRL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L= Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= APALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179 209a8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba 7768772f41813a4eb590082, E=needhee.2@ gmail.com, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.07 11:21:27+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 4 OA.No.314/2025 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr., vide their order, dt.14.08.2013, rendered in the context of taking away a part of pension, held that attempt of the appellant to take away a part of pension or gratuity or even leave encashment without any statutory provision and under the umbrage of administrative instruction cannot be countenanced and held that executive instructions do not have statutory character and, therefore, cannot be termed as "law", within the meaning of Article 300A.
3. On notice, Respondents have put in appearance through their Counsel and filed a reply stating that -
i. The applicant, Sri N.Yadaiah, was initially engaged as casual labour on 03.03.1980 in the Construction Organization. Later, he was granted temporary status on 01.01.1984, in the scale of Rs.200-250. Further, without regularising his services, he was promoted, on adhoc basis, in the Construction Organization, as a Vehicle Driver on 19.09.1993, in the scale of Rs.950-1500. While working as an adhoc Vehicle Driver, he was regularised in scale of Rs.775-1025, w.e.f. 27.06.1997, as a Gangman, duly maintaining his lien on the SC division. Though he was absorbed as a Trackman, by maintaining his lien on the SC Division, he was continued as an Adhoc Driver upto 03.01.2011. He joined the Track Maintainer cadre, in the scale of Rs.5200-20200+1800 GP, as Trackman- IV, at SSE/PW/SNF, on 04.01.2011. Hence, his pay should have been fixed notionally, w.e.f. 27.06.1997, basing on the pay of Rs.775-1025, to Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL PANDIRL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L= Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= APALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179 209a8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba 7768772f41813a4eb590082, E=needhee.2@ gmail.com, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.07 11:21:27+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 5 OA.No.314/2025 work out his pay to be drawn as on 04.01.2011 when he joined the regular post of Trackman-IV. But, instead, his pay was fixed in the scale of Rs.3050-4590 directly and it was drawn on the basis of the higher pay of Adhoc Driver, instead of the reduced pay of Trackman-IV, in the scale of Rs.5200-20200+1800 GP.
ii. During Advance Verification of his service register, which was done, as per rules, before his retirement which was due on 30.11.2020, this erroneous fixation was identified and his pay was prefixed, accordingly. Initially, an amount of Rs.3,77,021/- was worked out for recovery towards overpayment which had occurred from Sept., 1993, onwards. The concerned SSE/P.Way/Sanathnagar (Permanent Way Inspector) informed the same to the applicant duly marking a copy of the letter, dt.02.11.2020, duly supplying him a drawn and due statement. iii. In response to the said letter, dt.02.11.2020, the applicant himself submitted a representation, dt.09.11.2020, stating that overpayment should be worked out w.e.f. August, 2010, till the date of identification and fresh overpayment amount due may be worked out. This shows that the applicant was well aware that he was drawing more than his actual pay, but he did not inform the same to the administration to rectify the error. He had deliberately remained silent in this respect. On the basis of his request, overpayment of pay and allowances was examined and a Drawn and Due Statement, for the period from January, 2011, to July, 2020, was prepared and an amount of Rs.2,48,820/- was arrived at towards overpayment, which was recovered from his retirement benefits. Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL PANDIRL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L= Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= APALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179 209a8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba 7768772f41813a4eb590082, E=needhee.2@ gmail.com, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.07 11:21:27+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 6 OA.No.314/2025 iv. Respondents have argued that there is no violation of any rules or constitutional provisions with respect of overpayment recovery of the amount paid in excess of the dues. The contention of the applicant that no opportunity was given to him, before effecting the recovery, which was against the principles of natural justice, does not hold good. The judgment relied upon by the applicant is not applicable to the present case as the grounds and merits of the case are totally different. Further, there is no recovery attached to the applicant's pension and, hence, there is no violation of any constitutional right.
v. It is further submitted that the applicant has filed the present OA after a lapse of more than 4 years without filing condone delay petition. On this aspect, the respondents have relied upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in support of their contention - a. Ramesh Chand Sharma vs. Udham Singh Kamal, 1999(2) SCSLJ 294 - Held: "No application for condonation of delay filed - Tribunal not right in deciding the OA on merits overlooking the statutory provisions contained in Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act."
b. Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana - Held: "The delay disentitles a party to discretionary relief under Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution. The appellants kept sleeping over their rights for long and woke up when they had the impetus from Union of India vs. Virpal Singh Chauhan (195) 6 SCC 684. The appellants' desperate attempt to redo the seniority is not amenable to judicial review at this belated stage."
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL PANDIRL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L= Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= APALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179 209a8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba 7768772f41813a4eb590082, E=needhee.2@ gmail.com, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.07 11:21:27+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 7 OA.No.314/2025 c. Shiba Shankar Mohapatra and Ors. V. State of Orissa and Ors (AIR 2010 SC 706) - Held: "It is settled law that fence-sitters cannot be allowed to raise the dispute or challenge the validity of the order after its conclusion. No party can claim the relief as a matter of right as one of the grounds for refusing relief is that the person approaching the Court is guilty of delay and the latches. The Court exercising public law jurisdiction does not encourage agitation of stale claims where the right of third parties crystallizes in the interregnum."
d. Bhoop Singh vs. UOI (1992 21 ATC 675) - Held: "Inordinate delay or latches by itself is a ground to refuse claim to the petitioner, irrespective of the merit of his claim. If a person is entitled to relief and chooses to remain silent for long, he thereby gives rise to a reasonable belief in the minds of the others that he is not interested in claiming that relief."
vi. With this, the respondents prayed to dismiss the OA.
4. Heard learned counsels for both the parties and perused the materials placed on record.
5. The applicant's counsel refers to the Payment Advice in the Pension Settlement Details at Ann.A-3 of the OA, showing recovery of OP-Pay through deduction of Rs.2,48,820/-, out of the Gratuity amount of Rs.6,63,741/-. According to him, the recovery has been made unilaterally without affording him any opportunity to contest it. He further refers to RBE No.72/2016, dated 22.06.2016 (Ann.A-7), based on DoPT OMs, dt.06.02.2014 and 02.03.2016, Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL PANDIRL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L= Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= APALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179 209a8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba 7768772f41813a4eb590082, E=needhee.2@ gmail.com, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.07 11:21:27+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 8 OA.No.314/2025 regarding "Recovery of wrongful/excess payments made to Government Servants", enumerating certain situations wherein recovery by the employer would be impermissible. These are situations listed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment in Rafiq Masih's case. According to him, the case of the applicant also does not fall under Rule-9 of the Railway Services (Pension Rules), 1993 (Annexure A-8) and ignoring the order laid down in Rafiq Masih case is a violation of Article 300A.
6. The applicant's counsel also refers to Rule 79 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, (stages for the completion of pension papers on superannuation) wherein, according to Rule 79(b)(v), verification of emoluments has to be conducted only for the period of 24 months preceding the date of retirement of a Railway servant and not beyond that, whereas, in this case, Respondents have gone far beyond that upto January, 2011, i.e., 14 years prior to the date of retirement of the applicant. He also states that no show-cause notice has been given to him and merely a copy of the intimation sent by the SE to the Senior DPO/SC, on 02.11.2020, was marked to him.
7. Per contra, the respondents' counsel has argued that, vide a copy of the letter, dt.02.11.2020 (Ann.R-1), intimation regarding the OP recovery was issued to the applicant and it was received by him on 05.11.2020, prior to his retirement on 30.11.2020. The applicant had made his representation against the said order on 09.11.2020 which was answered by the Department on 27.11.2020, stating that he was not eligible for grant of the 3rd financial up-gradation under the MACP Scheme. It is further contended that the applicant was aware of the over- payment, as seen from his representation, dated 09.11.2020 (Annexure R-III), Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL PANDIRL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L= Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= APALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179 209a8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba 7768772f41813a4eb590082, E=needhee.2@ gmail.com, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.07 11:21:27+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 9 OA.No.314/2025 wherein he himself stated that the overpayment has to be worked out only from August, 2010, till 2020. The relevant portion of the representation at Ann.R-III is extracted below -
"I am going to retire on 30.11.2020 on attaining the age of superannuation. Now I have been informed that an amount of Rs.377021.00 is going to be recovered from my retirement benefits due to over payment of pay and allowances on regulation of pay. Moreover, recovery of over payment is impermissible at the time of superannuation as per the RBE No.72/2016. Following are to be noted while assessing the over payment which was worked by the concerned erroneously.
The pay was regulated from 01.01.1984 to 01.07.2020 in an irregular manner. My pay from 01.01.1984 to September-1993 is correct at due side. The pay from September-1993 to August-2010 is not correct as the pay is to be shown in the scale of Rs.950-1500/3050-4590/grade pay of Rs.1900 as I worked as Vehicle Driver and drawn the salary on adhoc basis. The pay shown in scale Rs.775-1025/2610-3540/grade pay of Rs.1800 in due and worked out over payment which is not correct. The over payment of pay should be worked out only from August-2010 onwards, pay fixation is not correct on my joining in the Open Line. The concerned might not have the knowledge about fixation of pay and its regulation. The pay fixation can be shown on proforma basis from 01.01.1984 to 2020, but the over payment is to be worked out only from August-2010 to 2020.
I was provided paper lien in Secunderabad division as Trackman, but the promotions/upgradation to the higher scales, but were not ordered as per my seniority for unknown reasons. The financial upgradation under ACP was also not ordered.
I request you to intervene and address the concerned to order the financial upgradation to the next higher scale in the cadre hierarchy and also the cadre promotions/upgradation in the P.Way unit in which my lien was provided. The pay in scale Rs.5200-20200 with grade pay of Rs.1800 is to be regulated from August-2020 and the over payment, if any may be worked out instead of recovering the amount of Rs.377021 which is incorrect."
8. Further, it has been strongly argued by the learned counsel for the Respondents that the O.A. has been filed beyond the period of limitation, after more than four years, without any petition for condonation of delay. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Chand Sharma has already laid down that an application without petition for condonation of delay cannot be considered by the Tribunal.
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL PANDIRL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L= Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= APALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179 209a8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba 7768772f41813a4eb590082, E=needhee.2@ gmail.com, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.07 11:21:27+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 10 OA.No.314/2025
9. The applicant's counsel refers to the correspondence between him and the Department, as mentioned in the O.A., to refute that charge of delay in filing the O.A. He also relies upon the judgement, dt.15.09.1975, of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A.No.52/1974, and orders in O.A. 428/2024, dt.04.07.2025, and O.A.524/2023, dt.28.11.2023, of this Tribunal.
10. It is noted that the applicant has submitted to the department that the amount of excess payment for the purpose of recovery could be worked out from August, 2010 to 2020, that is, till his retirement. Since, he was capable of advising the department in the matter for correction of the excess amount paid to him, as a loyal employee, he could have done it at the time of submission of his pension papers, if not earlier. After making the suggestion, vide his representation, dt.07.11.2020, there is no further communication till the DPG representation, dt.18.09.2023, followed by the representation, dt.22.03.2024. Detailed reply to his representation, dt.18.09.2023, was sent to him, vide letter, dt.03.10.2023, of the Sr.DPO/SC (R-3). Thereafter, reply to his letter, dt.22.03.2024, was sent, vide letter, dt.03.04.2024, of the Sr.DPO/SC. The applicant has omitted to mention in the OA about his submission, vide his representation, dt.07/09.11.2020, upon which, his case was re-examined and the sum of Rs.2,48,820/- was certified by the Accounts Department for recovery towards overpayment, in place of Rs.3,77,021/-, as intimated earlier on 02.11.2020. The PPO was issued on 27.11.2020 and the settlement was made as per details, dt.01.12.2020, at Ann.A-3. There is clearly no move by the applicant against the recovery for about next 3 years, upto 18.09.2023, under the DPG Registration, which is referred to in the reply, dt.03.10.2023 (Ann.A-2). Further, an Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL PANDIRL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L= Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= APALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179 209a8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba 7768772f41813a4eb590082, E=needhee.2@ gmail.com, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.07 11:21:27+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 11 OA.No.314/2025 impression is sought to be conveyed as if the entire action is as recent as that of the year 2023/2024.
11. As pointed out by the Respondents, there is a time limit for approaching the Court/Tribunal, in case of grievances, on account of final orders in any matter. There are several judgments of the Apex Court that disapprove of attempt to revive a dead and stale matter despite delay and acquiescence on the part of the applicant, simply because a fresh representation has been filed to cover up the time gap before approaching the Court. In case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board & Ors. Vs. T.T.Murali Babu, (2014) 4 SCC 108, the Apex Court has ruled -
"Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the Court would be under legal obligation to scrutinize whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the Court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant - a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, "procrastination is the greatest thief of time" and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis."
12. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) No.25795/2008 CC 11425/2008 between C.Jacob vs. Director of Geology and Mining and Anr., has examined the issue of the Modus of the representation adopted by several claimant/petitioner to get over the bar of limitation/delay and latches. In Paras 6 to 8 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as below -
"6. Let us take the hypothetical case of an employee who is terminated from service in 1980. He does not challenge the termination. But nearly two decades later, say in the year 2000, he decides to challenge the termination. He is aware that any such challenge would be rejected at the threshold on the ground of delay (if the application is made before Tribunal) or on the ground of delay and laches Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL PANDIRL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L= Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= APALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179 209a8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba 7768772f41813a4eb590082, E=needhee.2@ gmail.com, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.07 11:21:27+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 12 OA.No.314/2025 (if a writ petition is filed before a High Court). Therefore, instead of challenging the termination, he gives a representation requesting that he may be taken back to service. Normally, there will be considerable delay in replying such representations relating to old matters. Taking advantage of this position, the ex- employee files an application/writ petition before the Tribunal/High Court seeking a direction to the employer to consider and dispose of his representation. The Tribunals/High Courts routinely allow or dispose of such applications/petitions (many a time even without notice to the other side), without examining the matter on merits, with a direction to consider and dispose of the representation. The courts/tribunals proceed on the assumption, that every citizen deserves a reply to his representation. Secondly they assume that a mere direction to consider and dispose of the representation does not involve any `decision' on rights and obligations of parties. Little do they realize the consequences of such a direction to `consider'. If the representation is considered and accepted, the ex-employee gets a relief, which he would not have got on account of the long delay, all by reason of the direction to `consider'. If the representation is considered and rejected, the ex-employee files an application/writ petition, not with reference to the original cause of action of 1982, but by treating the rejection of the representation given in 2000, as the cause of action. A prayer is made for quashing the rejection of representation and for grant of the relief claimed in the representation. The Tribunals/High Courts routinely entertain such applications/petitions ignoring the huge delay preceding the representation, and proceed to examine the claim on merits and grant relief. In this manner, the bar of limitation or the laches gets obliterated or ignored.
7. Every representation to the government for relief, may not be replied on merits.
Representations relating to matters which have become stale or barred by limitation, can be rejected on that ground alone, without examining the merits of the claim. In regard to representations unrelated to the department, the reply may be only to inform that the matter did not concern the department or to inform the appropriate department. Representations with incomplete particulars may be replied by seeking relevant particulars. The replies to such representations, cannot furnish a fresh cause of action or revive a stale or dead claim.
8. When a direction is issued by a court/tribunal to consider or deal with the representation, usually the directee (person directed) examines the matter on merits, being under the impression that failure to do may amount to disobedience. When an order is passed considering and rejecting the claim or representation, in compliance with direction of the court or tribunal, such an order does not revive the stale claim, nor amount to some kind of `acknowledgment of a jural relationship' to give rise to a fresh cause of action." The Law of Limitation has been upheld by the Apex Court in the case of Lanka Venkateswarlu (D) by Lrs Vs. State of A.P. & Ors. [2011 4 SCC 363], decided on 24.02.2011. Further, a party cannot be entertained after it "chooses to sleep over his right for an inordinately long time", as decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Capt.Harish Uppal vs. Union of India (JT 1994 (3) SC (126), vide order, dt.30.03.1994. The Apex Court has also held that the law leans in favour of those who are alert and vigilant. Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL PANDIRL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L= Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= APALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179 209a8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba 7768772f41813a4eb590082, E=needhee.2@ gmail.com, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.07 11:21:27+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 13 OA.No.314/2025 In State of Orissa vs. Pyarimohan Samantaray & Ors reported in (1977) 3 SCC 396, it has been opined that making of repeated representations is not a satisfactory explanation of delay. The said principle was reiterated in State of Orissa v. Arun Kumar Patnaik. In State of T.N. v. Seshachalam, (2007) 10 SCC 137, the Apex Court, testing the equality clause, on the bedrock of delay and laches, pertaining to grant of service benefit, has ruled thus: -
".....filing of representations alone would not save the period of limitation. Delay or latches is a relevant factor for a court of law to determine the question as to whether the claim made by an applicant deserves consideration. ....... it is well known that law leans in favour of those who are alert and vigilant."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1577 of 2019 in Union of India vs. C.Girija on 13 February, 2019 [2019 (3) SCALE 527], has categorically held that -
'Mere filing of representation for the first time, years after accrual of cause of action and subsequent representations thereafter cannot arrest time as the claim would nonetheless become stale and will be barred by delay and laches.'
13. In the case of Charan Singh vs. UOI, the Principal Bench of this Tribunal, while dismissing OA.No.1432/2010 & MA No.1204/2010, vide its order, dt.02.09.2002, held that "delay defeats justice". This Tribunal, in its judgment, dt.30.01.2019, in MA No.299/2018, in OA.482/2018, dismissed the case, "since the submission of the representation to the competent authority and the pendency of the same does not save the limitation."
14. As per Sec.21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, the period of limitation has been laid down as follows -
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL PANDIRL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L= Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= APALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179 209a8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba 7768772f41813a4eb590082, E=needhee.2@ gmail.com, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.07 11:21:27+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 14 OA.No.314/2025 "21. Limitation. - (1) A Tribunal shall not admit an application,-
(a) in a case where a final order such as is mentioned in Clause (a) of sub-
section (2) of Section 20 has been made in connection with the grievance unless the application is made, within one year from the date on which such final order has been made;
(b) in a case where an appeal or representation such as is mentioned in Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 20 has been made and a period of six months had expired thereafter without such final order having been made, within one year from the date of expiry of the said period of six months.
x x x x x (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), an application may be admitted after the period of one year specified in Clause (a) or Clause (b) of sub-section (1) or, as the case may be, the period of six months specified in sub-section (2), if the applicant satisfies the Tribunal that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period."
15. Orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.52/1974 and of this Bench in OAs.524/2023 and 428/2024, which the learned counsel for the Applicant seeks to rely upon, have been issued in different set of facts and circumstances and are not applicable to this case.
16. Apart from the point of delay and latches and acquiescence on the fact of overpayment to which the applicant was certainly not entitled, we are constrained to observe that the correspondence between him and the department, which shows his consent for recovery, vide Anns.R-1, R-IV and R- V, has been left out from the OA and none of these has been annexed by the Applicant. Scrutiny of these documents, furnished along with the Reply Statement of the Respondents shows that the applicant is aware of the fact of overpayment and the amount was actually corrected as per his representation, in response to which, the reply, dt.27.11.2020, from the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer/SC (R-3) had settled the issue before his retirement and, thereafter, the Payment Advice, dt.01.12.2020, was issued by the SCR. Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL PANDIRL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L= Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= APALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179 209a8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba 7768772f41813a4eb590082, E=needhee.2@ gmail.com, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.07 11:21:27+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 15 OA.No.314/2025
17. It is evident, as agitated by the Respondents, that no petition for condonation of delay has been filed by the applicant for filing this OA in the year 2025, though the matter was settled before his retirement in Nov., 2020, on the basis of his representation, vide order, dt.01.12.2020. Therefore, it is found that no fresh cause of action surfaced at the time of submission of the representation, dt.18.09.2023 or 22.03.2024, by the Applicant. The OA is clearly time-barred. It must also be observed that suppression of the fact regarding his suggestion for recovery of overpayment indicates that the applicant has not approached this Tribunal with clean hands.
18. In the light of the above discussion, we find no grounds for interference in the matter. The OA is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi) Administrative Member 06.01.2026 /ps/ Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL PANDIRL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L= Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= APALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179 209a8c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba 7768772f41813a4eb590082, E=needhee.2@ gmail.com, CN=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.07 11:21:27+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0