Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Bhagwanrao Dnyanoba Thorat vs Kvs on 21 April, 2026
1
O A No. 718/2025
Central Administrative Tribunal
Mumbai Bench, Mumbai.
Original Application No. 718/2025.
Dated this Tuesday the 21st day of April, 2026
CORAM: Hon'ble Shri Justice Ranjit Vasantrao More, Chairman
Hon'ble Mr.Sangam Narain Srivastava,Member (A)
Bhagwanrao Dnyanoba Thorat
Age 78 years, Designation: Retired
residing at: A/P Somatane Gaon,
Near Shri Tulja Bhavani Vidyalaya,
Taluka Maval, District Pune - 410506
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 9730848689. ... Applicant
(By Advocate Shri Sangram Chinnappa)
Versus
1. Kendriya Vidayalaya Sangathan,
Through Its Commissioner, Head Quarters,
18, Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg,
New Delhi - 110 016.
2. Joint Commissioner (Finance)
Kendriya Vidayalaya Sangathan,
Head Quarters, 18, Institutional Area,
Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg,
New Delhi - 110 016.
3. The Deputy Commissioner,
Kendriya Vidayalaya Sangathan,
I.I.T Campus, Powai, Mumbai 400076.
.... Respondents
(By Advocate Dr. V.S. Masurkar)
Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone=
270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S=
Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=
Deepti Ganesh Munarshi 60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh
Munarshi
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.04.24 11:47:57+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
2
O A No. 718/2025
Order reserved on : 02.04.2026
Pronounced on : 21.04.2026.
ORDER
Per: Sangam Narain Srivastava, Member (A)
This Original Application has been filed by the applicant praying for the following reliefs:
"8.a This Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to quash and set aside order dated 13.05.2025 at ANNEXURE A1.
8.b This Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the Respondents to treat the applicant as covered by GPF cum pension scheme.
8.c This Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the Respondents to recalculate the retirement dues including pension, of the Applicant, by considering the Applicant to be covered by GPF-cum-Pension Scheme, and pay the Applicant his dues, if any.
8.d Such other orders be passed as the facts and circumstances of the case may require.
8.e Cost of this Application be provided for."
2. The facts are that the applicant was appointed to the post of Laboratory Assistant on 20th November, 1970. The applicant retired on 31st May, 2007. It is the contention of the applicant that he submitted the necessary forms for getting Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= Deepti Ganesh Munarshi 60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.04.24 11:47:57+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 3 O A No. 718/2025 pension under the GPF-cum-pension in 2007. Thereafter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SPL to Appeal (C) 27639/2019 upheld the case of similarly placed applicants on 29th November, 2019.
Thereafter, the applicant made a representation to the respondents to grant him pension under the GPF-cum-pension scheme. This representation was made on 12th April, 2022 (Annexure A-7). The respondents rejected the same on 21st April, 2022 stating that the applicant was governed by the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) Scheme, as he had opted out of the GPF-
cum-pension scheme. The applicant thereafter filed OA No.799/2022 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, which was disposed of on 13th March, 2025 directing the respondents to reconsider the applicant's case in the light of the observations made therein and to pass a detailed and speaking order within 90 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. On 13th May, 2025, the respondents again rejected the applicant's case by passing the impugned order. Hence, the present Original Application.Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= Deepti Ganesh Munarshi 60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.04.24 11:47:57+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 4 O A No. 718/2025
3. The respondents have filed their reply. They have raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the OA on the ground of delay and laches. Submissions on merits have also been made. The relevant portion of the reply is reproduced below:
"......At the outset, it is stated that the Applicant has filed OA on 08-08-2025 at the age of 78 years, to challenge speaking order dated 13-05-2025 (page 16 of the paper book) whereby his grievance for conversion from CPF to GPF cum Pension Scheme has been disposed of in compliance to the order dated 13-03-2025, issued by the Hon'ble Tribunal, Mumbai in OA No. 799 of 2022 and passed by the Respondents No.1. Applicant got retired on attaining age of superannuation on 31-05-2007 and raising a grievance in first round of litigation in 2022 in OA No. 799/2022 and thereafter on 08-08- 2025 in OA No. 718 of 2025, suffers from delay and latches and hence liable to be dismissed.
4. Without prejudice to the aforesaid contentions, the respondents would like to reply the OA parawise as under:-
5. With reference to para 1 of the OA, in view of the true position stated in para 3 above and also in speaking order dated13-05-2025, the OA is devoid of merit and hence liable to be dismissed with cost.
6. With reference to para 2 of the OA, the contentions are substantially correct.
Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh MunarshiDN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= Deepti Ganesh Munarshi 60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.04.24 11:47:57+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 5 O A No. 718/2025
7. With reference to para 3 of the OA, as stated in para 3 above, the OA is clearly suffers from delay and latches. Applicant on his own volition had opted for CPF Scheme and had made conscious decision to continue in CPF knowing well that the option once exercised is final. Every month the applicant was paid salary and every month applicant was issued with Salary slip and therefore the cause of action in this case arose every month on receipt of a salary slips. Therefore, the cause of action in this case is of option and not pension. Thus strict rules of limitation are applicable in such cases. In support of this contention the respondents are relying upon the following judgements:
(i) P.S.Sadasivawswamy V/S S/O Tamil Nadu AIR 1974 SC 2271
(ii) Jacob Abraham and others.A.T.Full Bench Judgements, 1994-96.
(iii) Ram Chandra Samanta V/S UOI 1994(26) ATC 228.
(iv) S.S. Rathore V/S S/O M.P. 1989(2) ATC 521.
(v) Bhoop Singh V/S UOI IR 1992 SC 1414.
(vi) Secretary to Govt. of India V/S Shivaram M. Gaikwad (1995) 30 ATC 635-1995(6) SLR (SC) 812.
(vii)Ex.Capt. Harish Uppal V/S UOI 1994(2) SLJ 177.
(viii)L.Chandra Kumar V/S UOI 1997(2) SLR(SC)1.
(ix) AIR 199 SC 564 Dattaram V/S Union of India
(x) 1996 LLJ 1127(SC) UOI V/S Bhagnoar Singh.Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= Deepti Ganesh Munarshi 60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.04.24 11:47:57+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 6 O A No. 718/2025 (1999)8 SCC 304 Ramesh Chand Sharma V/s Udham Singh Kamal & Ors.
(xi) 2002 (5) SLR(SC) 307 E. Parmasivan & ors VS UOI & Ors. AT Act, 1985-Article 226-
Writ Petition-Delay and latches-Maintainability of writ petition-Limitation-Application before Tribunal in 1995, by retired MES officers Retirement between 31-01-1974 to 31-05-1985, for fixation of pay in term of OM dated 12-1-1976. Tribunal right in dismissing applications on grounds of limitation.
It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically ruled that stale claim cannot be gone into by this Hon'ble Tribunal. This settled position is already accepted by this Hon'ble Tribunal in its judgement and order dated 12-12-2006 in O.A.No.92 of 2006 Kaushal Kishore V/S Union of India & others. Moreover, Full Bench of this Hon'ble Tribunal has also ruled that preliminary objection with regard to jurisdiction and limitation has to be decided first. The Respondents also rely upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arun Agarwal V/S Nagreeka Exports reported in (2002) 10 SCC 101.
The respondents are relying upon the latest judgement in the case of UOI VS M.K Sarkar reported in (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 1126. Reckoning of date of accrual of cause of action-Tribunal allowing respondents application without examining merits directing Railway Administration to consider stale claim- Unnecessary litigation and avoidable complication arising out of-Propriety and warrantedness of. Issue of limitation or delay and latches has to be considered with reference to original cause of action and not with reference to Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= Deepti Ganesh Munarshi 60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.04.24 11:47:57+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 7 O A No. 718/2025 date on which an order is passed in compliance with a courts directions. Held, someone wrongly extended a benefit cannot be cited as a precedent for claiming similar benefits by others.
The respondents are also relying on the latest judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the point of delay and latches:
(i) 2014(1) SLJ (SC) 20 Esha Battcharjee VS Management Committee of Raghnathpur Nafar Academy.
(ii) 2014(2) SLR 688(SC)=(2013) 12 SCC 649 State of Uttarakhand VS Sri Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari.
It is further submitted that in the case of Union of India VS L. Chandrakuamar, the Constitution Bench has held that the period of limitation prescribed in Section 21 is strict one.
In the latest judgement dated 21-11-2017, in the case of Ravinder Kumar VS UOI & ors reported in 2018(1)SLJ (SC) 150- Held, inordinate delay of more than 5 years in filing of application may not be condoned. Power of the High Court to issue an appropriate writ under Article 226 of Constitution is discretionary.
In the latest judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2018)16 SCC 721 DCS Negi VS UOI & ors - Held duty of Tribunal to first consider issue of limitation and only thereafter admit same if found to have been made within period of limitation or sufficient cause is shown for not doing so or an order is passed under Section 21(3). Annexure R-1."
Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh MunarshiDN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= Deepti Ganesh Munarshi 60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.04.24 11:47:57+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 8 O A No. 718/2025
4. On merits, it was submitted by the respondents thus:
"8. With reference to para 4.1 of the OA, it is submitted that the retd. Lab Attendant, KV No.1 Dehu Road Pune had initially appointed as Lab Attendant and joined KVS on 20.11.1970. He opted CPF Scheme upon appointment by submitting Annexure-R-2 dated 08.01.1972. Thereafter, in response to KVS OM dated 01.09.1988, he had continued his CPF Scheme with revised CPF Account No. 1187 till his retirement i.e. 31.05.2007.
In this case, Revised option form of Applicant is not available but on the basis of secondary evidences like CPF Ledger entries, LPC at the time of retirement, CPF Nomination form, it is more and more clear that the applicant was CPF subscriber till his retirement. It is pertinent to mention here that in case of Smt Jaspal Kaur "The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide Judgement dated 06.06.2007 in Civil Application 2876/07 filed by KVS Vs. Smt. Jaspal Kaur has laid down the law that merely because the original document relating to exercise of option was not produced that should not be a ground to ignore the ample materials produced to show exercise of the option".
Applicant on his own volition had opted for CPF Scheme and had made conscious decision to continue in CPF knowing well that the option once exercised is final. This appears to be clear case in which after giving their option for continuing under the CPF Scheme, the applicant had a change of mind after his retirement and now wishes to avail the benefit of GPF Scheme and at this belated stage to say that the OM dated 01.09.1988 created a legal fiction is not valid."
Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh MunarshiDN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= Deepti Ganesh Munarshi 60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.04.24 11:47:57+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 9 O A No. 718/2025
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned counsel for the respondents and have perused the pleadings and documents on record.
6. In their decision in D.C.S Negi Vs. Union of India & Others, (2018) 16 SCC 721, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"......13. A reading of the plain language of the above reproduced section makes it clear that the Tribunal cannot admit an application unless the same is made within the time specified in clauses (a) and (b) of Section 21(1) or Section 21(2) or an order is passed in terms of sub-section (3) for entertaining the application after the prescribed period. Since Section 21(1) is couched in negative form, it is the duty of the Tribunal to first consider whether the application is within limitation. An application can be admitted only if the same is found to have been made within the prescribed period or sufficient cause is shown for not doing so within the prescribed period and an order is passed under Section 21(3).
14. In the present case, the Tribunal entertained and decided the application without even adverting to the issue of limitation. The learned counsel for the petitioner tried to explain this omission by pointing out that in the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, no such objection was raised but we have not felt impressed. In our view, the Tribunal cannot abdicate its duty to act in accordance with the statute under Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= Deepti Ganesh Munarshi 60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.04.24 11:47:57+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 10 O A No. 718/2025 which it is established and the fact that an objection of limitation is not raised by the respondent/non- applicant is not at all relevant.
7. In the present case, the respondents have raised the issue of delay and laches in filing the OA. It is, therefore, incumbent upon the Tribunal to first decide the issue of limitation.
8. We observe that the OA has been filed by the applicant without an application for condonation of delay. The OA was filed on 08th August, 2025. From the pleadings, it appears that the cause of action arose on 13th May, 2025, as the impugned order was passed on 13th May, 2025 and the limitation would expire on 12th May, 2026. It is, therefore, contended that the present application is well within limitation.
9. During the course of hearing, it was accepted by the applicant's counsel that the representation and the OA were filed after the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a similar matter on 29th November, 2019. It was also submitted that this being a continuous cause of action, limitation would not apply.Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= Deepti Ganesh Munarshi 60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.04.24 11:47:57+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 11 O A No. 718/2025
10. As against this, the respondents, relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka And Others Vs. S.M. Kotrayya And Others, (1996) 6 SCC 267, submitted that filing an application after a favourable decision of the Court or Tribunal in similar claims is not a proper explanation to justify condonation of delay. It was further submitted by the respondents that the cause of action arose not on the passing of the impugned order dated 13th May, 2025. It was submitted that the cause of action in this case is the exercise of option which related to 2007. It was further submitted that this cannot be treated as a continuous cause of action, as it does not relate to fixation of pension but to the exercise of option.
11. We have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties.
12. From the facts, it is clear that the option for change from CPF to GPF was to be exercised in 2007. Whether any option was exercise or not, the applicant continued as a CPF Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= Deepti Ganesh Munarshi 60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.04.24 11:47:57+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 12 O A No. 718/2025 beneficiary and retired on 31st May, 2007. All retiral benefits were paid to the applicant. In a similar matter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 29th November, 2019, decided in favour of similarly placed applicants. On 12th April, 2022, the applicant made a representation for grant of pension as per GPF-cum-
pension scheme, which was rejected on 21st April, 2022.
Thereafter, the applicant filed OA No.799/2022. The said OA was filed without application for condonation of delay and objections were taken by the respondents on grounds of delay and laches. The order was passed by the Tribunal on merits. The OA was disposed of on 13th March, 2025 directing the respondents to consider the applicant's case and pass a detailed and speaking order within 90 days. The respondents on 13th May, 2025, again rejected the claim of the applicant for change from CPF to GPF Pension Scheme. The applicant thereafter filed the present OA on 08th August, 2025 at the age of 78 years. This application has also been filed without an application for condonation of delay as according to the applicant, he is within limitation as the impugned order is dated 13th May, 2025. This Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= Deepti Ganesh Munarshi 60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.04.24 11:47:57+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 13 O A No. 718/2025 has been opposed by the respondents for the reasons mentioned (supra).
13. The facts remain that the applicant, having retired in 2007 and having denied the benefit of GPF-cum-pension scheme and paid his retiral dues as per CPF Scheme, the cause of action and injury, if any, on this account arose in that year i.e., 2007. The applicant, however, waited till the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided a similar matter in favour of similarly placed applicants.
He then made a representation on 12th April, 2022 to the respondents. Admittedly, no application for condonation of delay has been filed. The explanation given by the applicant during the course of hearing is that it is a continuous cause of action as also that he decided to file the representation and thereafter OA after decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a similar case. Neither of the two explanations helps the applicant.
14. The case of the applicant is that he was not allowed benefit of GPF-cum-pension scheme and retired with CPF scheme. The injury is not with respect to fixation of pension but Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= Deepti Ganesh Munarshi 60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.04.24 11:47:57+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 14 O A No. 718/2025 grant of pension itself. The cause of action arose at the time of retirement itself. This difference has to be appreciated. It cannot be considered a continuous cause of action.
15. The decision in the case of The Chief Executive Officer & Ors. Vs. S. Lalitha and Ors., Civil Appeal No.5528/2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.6289/2019 decided on 24th April, 2025, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:
"35. We hold that except in cases where final orders are passed on appeals/ revisions/ memorials/ representations which are statutorily provided, limitation for the purpose of filing an original application under Section 19 of the 1985 Act, in view of the above-referred decisions and Sections 21 and 20 thereof, has to be reckoned keeping in mind the date of accrual of the cause of action and the proximity of the date of the representation, and the period of one year for filing an original application has to be counted from the date of expiry of six months from date of such a representation if no order were passed thereon. Needless to observe, the cause of action cannot be deferred by making a highly belated representation and awaiting its outcome. We also make it clear that different considerations would arise in a case of a continuous wrong, which has to be decided in the light of the decision of this Court in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh 2008 INSC 930 = (2008) 8 SCC 648. Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= Deepti Ganesh Munarshi 60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.04.24 11:47:57+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 15 O A No. 718/2025
36. On such premise as explained above, the respondent should have, if she felt aggrieved by the action of the appellants of granting her benefits of financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme instead of the ACP Scheme, availed the remedy before the Tribunal immediately after her rights were affected. She ought not to have waited for so long for ventilating her grievance through a belated representation. Filing of such belated representation, which was rejected in no time, did not have the effect of postponing the cause of action and stretching the period of limitation so as to render the O.A. as filed within time.
37. Both fora, i.e., the Tribunal as well as the High Court, did not rule on the objection of maintainability of the O.A. despite such objection being sound. The reasons that we have assigned would lead to the irresistible conclusion that the O.A. was time-barred and should not have been entertained by the Tribunal. The High Court too erred in law by failing to entertain the challenge to the Tribunal's order on the specious ground that the decision in B.D. Kadam (supra) covered the issue without, however, examining whether the O.A. was maintainable".
By their above decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that upgradation under MACP scheme as against under ACP scheme was hit by delay and laches, a situation which is akin to the present case. This has not been considered as a continuous wrong by the Court.
Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh MunarshiDN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= Deepti Ganesh Munarshi 60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.04.24 11:47:57+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 16 O A No. 718/2025
16. In State of Karnataka And Others Vs. S.M. Kotrayya And Others (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"9. Thus considered, we hold that it is not necessary that the respondents should give an explanation for the delay which occasioned for the period mentioned in sub-sections (1) or (2) of Section 21, but they should give explanation for the delay which occasioned after the expiry of the aforesaid respective period applicable to the appropriate case and the Tribunal should be required to satisfy itself whether the explanation offered was proper explanation. In this case, the explanation offered was that they came to know of the relief granted by the Tribunal in August 1989 and that they filed the petition immediately thereafter. That is not a proper explanation at all. What was required of them to explain under sub-sections (1) and (2) was as to why they could not avail of the remedy of redressal of their grievances before the expiry of the period prescribed under sub-section (1) or (2). That was not the explanation given. Therefore, the Tribunal is wholly unjustified in condoning the delay.
From the above, it can be seen that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that relief granted in a similar case is not a proper explanation for the delay and delay cannot be condoned on this ground.Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= Deepti Ganesh Munarshi 60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.04.24 11:47:57+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 17 O A No. 718/2025
17. A conjoint reading of the decisions in State of Karnataka And Others Vs. S.M. Kotrayya And Others (supra) and The Chief Executive Officer & Ors. Vs. S. Lalitha and Ors (supra), leaves us with no hesitation in holding that the OA of the applicant is hit by delay and laches. The explanation provided by the applicant during the course of hearing does not satisfactorily explain the delay in filing the OA. We, therefore, hold that the application is not maintainable being hit by delay and laches.
18. Accordingly, the Original Application is dismissed.
Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. No costs.
(Sangam Narain Srivastava) (Justice Ranjit More)
Member (A) Chairman
dm.
Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S= Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= Deepti Ganesh Munarshi 60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.04.24 11:47:57+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0