Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Vinod Kumar Singh vs Deptt Of Posts on 17 October, 2025
1
Item No. 42/C-III MA No. 945/2025
In
OA No. 4287/2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
M.A. No. 945/2025
In
O.A. No. 4287/2024
Reserved on: 07.10.2025.
Pronounced on: 17.10.2025.
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
Sh. Vinod Kumar Singh
S/o Chhotey Lal
R/o 1-b 232, Lodhi Vihar
Sasni gate, Agra Road
Aligarh, UP ... Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Shoeb Shakeel)
Versus
1. UNION OF INDIA
Through its Secretary
Department of Post
Sansad Marg,
New Delhi- 110001
2. The Assistant Director General,
DE Section, Dak Bhawan
Sansad Marg, New Delhi- 110001 ... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. R. S. Rana & Mr. S. N. Verma)
2
Item No. 42/C-III MA No. 945/2025
In
OA No. 4287/2024
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A): -
By way of the present M.A., the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs: -
"a) Allow the present application and may kindly condone the delay of approximately 7 years in filing the O.A. i.e. 2555 days.
b) Pass such or other further order that this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the above mentioned O.A. has been filed before this Tribunal by the applicant and is fixed for 17.12.2024. He further states that on perusal of the contents of the O.A., its ground and the documents are annexed therewith, it is evident that the applicant has a plausible case in his favour. The O.A. is likely to be succeeded. He contends that the applicant preferred a representation to the respondent on 23.06.2017 thereby requesting for promotion in pursuance to his merit in the list of the selected candidates of IP examination 2015-2016 held on 22/23.10.2016. After filing the said representation the applicant kept on pursuing his representation and made several requests orally. The respondent kept on assuring the applicant that he will be promoted but after making several reminders though orally, nothing fruitful came out. He further contends that the delay of approximately 7 years in filing the present O.A. is bonafide as the applicant was hopeful and believed the assurances given by the respondents to be true. He prays that the delay may be condoned otherwise the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss which cannot be compensated.
3. Counter reply has been filed by the respondents on 20.07.2025 wherein they have stated that the present M.A. has been filed by 3 Item No. 42/C-III MA No. 945/2025 In OA No. 4287/2024 the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act seeking condonation of delay of approx. 7 years in filing O.A. The Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, deals with the limitation. Section 21 reads as follows:-
"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. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), where - (a) the grievance in respect of which an application is made had arisen by reason of any order made at any time during the period of three years immediately preceding the date on which the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunal becomes exercisable under this Act in respect of the matter to which such order relates ; and (b) no proceedings for the redressal of such grievance had been commenced before the said date before any High Court, the application shall be entertained by the Tribunal if it is made within the period referred to in clause (a), or, as the case may be, clause (b), of sub-section (1) or within a period of six months from the said date, whichever period expires later. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (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".
4. The respondents further submit that it is settled law 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 or not. Regarding limitation under Section 21 of Act, 1985, the matter has been examined by a 7-Judges Bench of Supreme Court in S. S. Rathore Vs. State of Madhya 4 Item No. 42/C-III MA No. 945/2025 In OA No. 4287/2024 Pradesh and the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "We are of the view that the cause of action shall be taken to arise not from the date of the original adverse order but on the date when the order of the higher authority where a statutory remedy is provided entertaining the appeal or representation is made and where no such order is made, though the remedy has been availed of, a six months' period from the date of preferring of the appeal or making of the representation shall be taken to be the date when cause of action shall be taken to have first arisen. We, however, make it clear that this principle may not be applicable when the remedy availed of has not been provided by law. Repeated unsuccessful representations not provided by law are not governed by this principle. It is appropriate to notice the provision regarding limitation under section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act. Sub-section (1) has prescribed a period of one year for making of the application and power of condonation of delay of a total period of six months has been vested under sub- section (3). The Civil Court's jurisdiction has been taken away by the Act and, therefore, as far as Government servants are concerned, Article 58 may not be invocable in view of the special limitation. When limitation is prescribed under a special Statute, general period of limitation prescribed under Limitation Act, 1963 shall have no application. Limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act. Sub Section (1) has prescribed a period of one year for making of the application and power of condonation of delay of a total period of six months has been vested under sub-section (3). The civil court's jurisdiction has been taken away by the Act and, therefore, as far as government servants are concerned, Article 58 may not be invocable in view of the special limitation.
5Item No. 42/C-III MA No. 945/2025
In
OA No. 4287/2024
5. The respondents further submits that in the instant case, cause of action occurred to the applicant originally on 23.06.2017, when according to the applicant, he preferred a representation to the respondent thereby requesting for promotion in pursuance to his merit in the list selected candidates and after filing of the said of the representation, as per the applicant, he kept on pursuing his representation and made several requests orally and according to the applicant, the respondent kept on assuring the applicant that he will be promoted but after making several reminders though orally, nothing fruitful came out. It may be noted that Supreme Court in S. S. Rathore Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh has held that "We are of the view that the cause of action shall be taken to arise not from the date of the original adverse order but on the date when the order of the higher authority where a statutory remedy is provided entertaining the appeal or representation is made and where no such order is made, though the remedy has been availed of, a six months' period from the date of preferring of the appeal or making of the representation shall be taken to be the date when cause of action shall be taken to have first arisen. We, however, make it clear that this principle may not be applicable when the remedy availed of has not been provided by law. Repeated unsuccessful representations not provided by law are not governed by this principle."
6. The respondents contend that the applicant has not given any sufficient reason, let alone a plausible reason to explain the delay in filing the present O.A. when cause of action first arose on 23.06.2017, when according to the applicant, his salary wasn't revised like his similarly situated other colleagues and his enquiry about the reason for such discrimination.
6Item No. 42/C-III MA No. 945/2025
In
OA No. 4287/2024
7. They further contend that it may be noted that the law does not permit extension of period of limitation by mere filing of a representation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of State of Tripura & Ors. Vs. Arabinda Chakraborty & Ors. (SC, 21.04.2014) has held that "It is a settled legal position that the period of limitation would commence from the date on which the cause of action takes place. Had there been any statute giving right of appeal to the respondent and if the respondent had filed such a statutory appeal, the period of limitation would have commenced from the date when the statutory appeal was decided. In the instant case, there was no provision with regard to any statutory appeal. The respondent kept on making representations one after another and all the representations had been rejected. Submission of the respondent to the effect that the period of limitation would commence from the date which his last representation was rejected cannot be accepted. If accepted, it would be nothing but travesty of the law of limitation. One can go on making representations for 25 years and in that event one cannot say that the period of limitation would commence when the last representation was decided. On this legal issue, we feel that the courts below committed an error by considering the date of rejection of the last representation as the date on which the cause of action had arisen. This could not have been done."
8. The respondents also place reliance on the judgment in the matter of Union of India and others Vs. M. K. Sarkar, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after referring to C. Jacob (supra) has ruled that when a belated representation in regard to a stale or dead issue/dispute is considered and decided, in compliance with a direction by the court/tribunal to do so, the date of such decision cannot be considered as furnishing a fresh 7 Item No. 42/C-III MA No. 945/2025 In OA No. 4287/2024 cause of action for reviving the dead issue or time-barred dispute. The issue of limitation or delay and laches should be considered with reference to the original cause of action and not with reference to the date on which an order is passed in compliance with a courts direction. Neither a courts direction to consider a representation issued without examining the merits, nor a decision given in compliance with such direction, will extend the limitation, or erase the delay and laches.
9. The respondents also contend that allowing such a massive delay would not only violate the express provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act but would also encourage a culture of disregard for statutory time limits. Such a decision would send a harmful message that parties can neglect their legal remedies for years and still expect the Tribunal to entertain their claims. The Tribunal is under a duty to uphold the integrity of the legal system and ensure that applications are filed within the prescribed time limits, except under exceptional circumstances.
10. The respondents state that the legislative intent behind the limitation period is clear: to avoid stale claims and to ensure that cases are adjudicated within a reasonable time frame. Allowing the applicant's application would not only defeat this intent but would undermine the efficient functioning of the Tribunal. The limitation period is not a mere formality, and the Tribunal must reject attempts to extend this period based on vague or insufficient grounds.
11. The approach of the applicant from the beginning has been lackadaisical and indolent which is responsible for the inordinate delay in approaching this Tribunal. Delay and laches, on part of the applicant to seek remedy is written large on the face of record.
8Item No. 42/C-III MA No. 945/2025
In
OA No. 4287/2024
12. The applicant has not adduced sufficient cause that prevented him from filing the Application within the prescribed period of limitation. In the matter of D.C.S. Negi vs. Union of India & Others, decided on 07.03.2011, by the Hon'ble apex Court; SLP (C) No.7956/2011 (CC No. 3709/2011), it has been held as follows:-
"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)".
13. In the instant case, no reasons are forthcoming in the M.A to make out a sufficient cause for not making the original application within the period of limitation of one year. No reasons are forthcoming in the M.A. to make out sufficient cause to condone the delay. The cause of action, if any, had accrued to the applicant in the year 2017.
14. Last but not the least, reference may be made to State of Uttaranchal & Anr. Vs. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari & Ors., decided on 23.08.2013 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court on the question of laches and delay in coming to the court to decide matters of seniority, held that:-
"We are absolutely conscious that in the case at hand the seniority has not been disturbed in the promotional cadre and no promotions may be unsettled. There may not be unsettlement of the settled position but, a pregnant one, the respondents chose to sleep like Rip Van Winkle and got up from their slumber at their own leisure, for some reason which is fathomable to them only. But such fathoming of reasons by oneself is not countenanced in law. Anyone who sleeps over his right is bound to suffer. As I perceive neither the tribunal nor the High Court has appreciated these aspects in proper perspective and proceeded on the base that a junior was promoted 9 Item No. 42/C-III MA No. 945/2025 In OA No. 4287/2024 and, therefore, the seniors cannot be denied the promotion. Remaining oblivious to the factum of delay and laches and granting relief is contrary to all settled principles and even would not remotely attract the concept of discretion. I may hasten to add that the same may not be applicable in all circumstances where certain categories of fundamental rights are infringed. But, a stale claim of getting been promotional benefits definitely should not have entertained by the tribunal and accepted by the High Court. True it is, notional promotional benefits have been granted but the same is likely to affect the State exchequer regard being had to the fixation of pay and the pension. These aspects have not been taken into consideration. What is urged before us by the learned counsel for the respondents is that they should have been equally treated with Madhav Singh Tadagi. But equality has to be claimed at the right juncture and not after expiry of two decades. Not for nothing, it has been said that everything may stop but not the time, for all are in a way slaves of time. There may not be any provision providing for limitation but a grievance relating to promotion cannot be given a new lease of life at any point of time."
15. In the light of the aforesaid settled principle of law and facts of the case as noted above, it follows that the applicant has failed to make out a sufficient cause for not making the original application within the period of limitation as envisaged by Section 21 of the Act. Accordingly the O.A. and M.A., being barred by period of limitation, is liable to be dismissed.
16. We have perused the pleadings available on record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and have also gone through the Orders/Judgments referred to and relied upon by the learned counsels for the respective parties carefully.
17. The issue for determination is limited and straightforward -- has the applicant satisfied the Tribunal that there was sufficient cause for not filing the O.A. within the period prescribed under Section 21 (1) (and therefore for the Tribunal to exercise its discretion under Section 21 (3))? If not, the M.A. must be rejected and O.A. No. 4287/2024 dismissed as barred by limitation.
10Item No. 42/C-III MA No. 945/2025
In
OA No. 4287/2024
18. Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, prescribes the period of limitation and the power to condone delay. Sub-section (1) prescribes the normative periods; sub- section (2) contains special saving provisions in certain transitional cases; and sub-section (3) enables the Tribunal to admit an application after the prescribed period if the applicant satisfies the Tribunal that he had sufficient cause for not making the application in time. Rule 25 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 reads as under:-
"25. Period of Limitation of appeals No appeal preferred under this part shall be entertained unless such appeal is preferred within a period of forty-five days from the date on which a copy of the order appealed against is delivered to the appellant:
Provided that the appellate authority may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period, if it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal in time."
19. The settled approach of the Supreme Court is that cause of action for the purposes of Section 21 will, in appropriate cases, arise either (a) on the date of the final order of the statutory higher authority (where a statutory appeal/representation is provided and decided) or (b) where no such statutory remedy is provided by law, on the date when the representation has been preferred and a further period of six months may be reckoned in some situations. Importantly, however, where the remedy availed of is not statutory in nature -- that is, where only informal or repeated representations have been made -- the pendency of such representations will not indefinitely postpone the date of accrual of cause of action. The Supreme Court in State of Tripura Vs. Arabinda Chakraborty (supra) has held that repeated non- statutory representations cannot be allowed to revive or postpone limitation ad infinitum. The Tribunal must therefore examine 11 Item No. 42/C-III MA No. 945/2025 In OA No. 4287/2024 whether the representation relied upon by the applicant was a statutory remedy and, if not, whether sufficient cause exists to justify condonation under Section 21 (3).
20. It is further settled that the Tribunal, in dealing with an application under Section 21 (3), must first determine whether the application is within limitation; if it is not, the Tribunal must then consider whether sufficient cause is shown; the jurisdiction to condone delay is a judicial discretion which must be exercised in accordance with legal principles and conscience, having regard to the facts of each case, the reasons for delay, the length of delay, the nature of the grievance, laches and prejudice to the opposite party. (See D.C.S. Negi Vs. Union of India and related authorities.)
21. In the present case the relevant chronological and factual matrix admits of little controversy. The applicant himself says that he filed a representation on 23.06.2017 requesting promotion. That representation -- on the material on record -- was an internal representation/request to the respondents; there is no averment in the M.A. or in the O.A. that a statutory appeal or statutory representation-cum-remedy lay to a specified higher authority which was invoked and decided. Nor does the applicant place any order on record showing that a statutory remedy was available and was finally decided at a later date (which, under the principles in S. S. Rathore (supra) might have led to the cause of action being taken as arising on the date of such decision). In short, there is no material to suggest that the applicant availed of a statutory remedy whose final disposal would mark the beginning of the limitation period.
12Item No. 42/C-III MA No. 945/2025
In
OA No. 4287/2024
22. Where only informal or repeated representations are made, the legal position is clear -- delay will not be condoned simply because the applicant kept making representations or because he received oral assurances from departmental officers. The Supreme Court in State of Tripura (supra) has cautioned against accepting the date of rejection of the last representation as the date when the cause of action arises; otherwise a litigant could indefinitely postpone litigation by making serial representations. In Union of India Vs. M. K. Sarkar the Court observed that a belated representation, or a decision taken in compliance with a court's direction in regard to a stale matter, cannot be treated as a fresh cause of action so as to revive the time-barred claim. These principles apply squarely to the present case.
23. The applicant's explanation for the long delay is essentially twofold: (i) that he was repeatedly orally assured by the respondents that he would be promoted, and (ii) that he kept pursuing his representation (by making reminders and oral requests) because he trusted those assurances. None of these reasons suffice as sufficient cause for condoning a delay of approximately seven years.
24. On the authorities it is well settled that mere hope or expectation arising out of informal/oral assurances is not a ground for condoning long delays. An applicant must demonstrate that he exercised due diligence and explain what prevented him from invoking judicial or tribunal remedy within the statutory period. The averments in the M.A. and the supporting pleadings are conclusory and devoid of particulars. There is no material showing that the applicant was misled into believing that a reasoned and binding decision would be taken within a finite time; no correspondence evidencing formal assurances or a 13 Item No. 42/C-III MA No. 945/2025 In OA No. 4287/2024 promise to decide within a stipulated time is placed on record; nor is there any evidence of disability, illness, or other circumstances which would render it impossible for the applicant to file proceedings within the period permitted by Section 21.
25. The respondents have also rightly emphasized the public interest in enforcing limitation. The policy underlying Section 21 is to avoid stale litigation and to protect the administration from indefinite and belated claims which have potential to disturb settled promotions, pensions and the public exchequer. The Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal Vs. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari has observed that a claimant who has slept over his rights may not be permitted to set them in motion at his convenience where the claim is stale and where the consequences of entertaining the claim would unsettle settled positions and impose hardship on public administration. The balance of convenience and overall public interest therefore weigh against condoning the present inordinate delay.
26. Learned counsel for the applicant invited the Tribunal to look at the potential merit of the O.A. and submitted that the applicant had a plausible case on merits. While the Tribunal is not oblivious to the fact that merits may be relevant to exercise of discretion in borderline cases, the power under Section 21 (3) is not a back-door to revive stale disputes by pointing to possible success on merits when the applicant has not shown any reasonable explanation for long years of inaction. The materials on record do not disclose any exceptional circumstances -- such as continuing fraud, concealment, or a legally recognized disability -- which would justify the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction to condone the delay of seven years in filing the O.A. 14 Item No. 42/C-III MA No. 945/2025 In OA No. 4287/2024
27. The approach of the applicant, in the view of the Tribunal, has been lackadaisical. The averments in the M.A. that he "kept on pursuing" the matter are not supported by contemporaneous documentary evidence, nor is there any material to show that the applicant was prevented by circumstances beyond his control from filing the O.A. within the statutory period. On the contrary, the explanation advanced reduces to a hope born of oral assurances -- precisely the kind of conduct which the Supreme Court has deprecated when deciding applications for condonation of delay.
28. It is strange that even after filing appeal, the applicant has waited for 7 years to agitate his cause before this Tribunal. Nowhere in his pleadings, has he tried to explain as to what have been the reasons for waiting for almost a decade for filing the present Original Application. The issue of delay has been dealt with by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No. 25957/2012 titled Krishan Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. decided on 16.01.2015. For facility of reference, relevant portion is quoted as under:-
"14. In State of Mahrashtra v. Digambar, (1995) 4 SCC 683, while dealing with exercise of power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court observed that power of the High Court to be exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution, if is discretionary, its exercise must be judicious and reasonable, admits of no controversy. It is for that reason, a person's entitlement for relief from a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, be it against the State or anybody else, even if is founded on the allegation of infringement of his legal right, has to necessarily depend upon unblameworthy conduct of the person seeking relief, and the court refuses to grant the discretionary relief to such person in exercise of such power, when he approaches it with unclean hands or blameworthy conduct.
15. In State of M. P. and others etc. etc. v. Nandlal Jaiswal and others etc. etc., AIR 1987 SC 251, the Court observed that it is well settled that power of the High Court to issue an appropriate writ 15 Item No. 42/C-III MA No. 945/2025 In OA No. 4287/2024 under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and the High Court in exercise of its discretion does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic. It has been further stated therein that if there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in filing a petition and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Emphasis was laid on the principle of delay and laches stating that resort to the extraordinary remedy under the writ jurisdiction at a belated stage is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring in injustice.
16. 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. In the case at hand, though there has been four years' delay in approaching the court, yet the writ court chose not to address the same. It is the duty of the court to scrutinize whether such enormous delay is to be ignored without any justification. That apart, in the present case, such belated approach gains more significance as the respondent-employee being absolutely careless to his duty and nurturing a lackadaisical attitude to the responsibility had remained unauthorisedly absent on the pretext of some kind of ill health. We repeat at the cost of repetition that remaining innocuously oblivious to such delay does not foster the cause of justice. On the contrary, it brings in injustice, for it is likely to affect others. Such delay may have impact on others' ripened rights and may unnecessarily drag others into litigation which in acceptable realm of probability, may have been treated to have attained finality. A court is not expected to give indulgence to such indolent persons- who compete with `Kumbhakarna' or for that matter 'Rip Van Winkle'. In our considered opinion, such delay does not deserve any indulgence and on the said ground alone the writ court should have thrown the petition overboard at the very threshold."16
Item No. 42/C-III MA No. 945/2025
In
OA No. 4287/2024
29. For the reasons recorded above and in view of the authoritative pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court summarized earlier, we are of the view that the applicant has failed to make out sufficient cause under Section 21 (3) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for condoning the delay of about seven years in filing the O.A.
30. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Application seeking condonation of delay stands dismissed. O.A. No. 4287/2024 is held to be barred by limitation and is accordingly dismissed on that ground. The dismissal is without any expression of opinion on the merits of the applicant's claims which shall remain open to the parties insofar as is permissible in law.
31. There shall be no order as to costs.
32. Registry is directed to place a copy of this order in the connected O.A. (Rajinder Kashyap) (Manish Garg) Member (A) Member (J) /neetu/