The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power to condone the delay under Section 21(3) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 should be exercised judicially, considering the genuine cause for entitlement and balancing the interests of both parties.

Jayant Patel, J.

In all these petitions as common questions arise for consideration they are being considered simultaneously. All petitions are directed against the common order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal ('Tribunal' for short) dated 23.04.2014. The Tribunal for the reasons recorded in the order has dismissed all the applications on the ground of delay in preferring the applications by the respective applicants.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 09.11.1998, Government of India had implemented 5th Central Pay Commission regarding introduction of Flexile Complimenting Scheme ('FCS' for short) applicable to the scientific staff working in S & T Organization and research institutes whose work is scientific in nature. But, the benefits were extended to the applicants before the Tribunal only with effect from 30.08.2006. However, some of the staff represented to the Government and to the Board to extend the benefit with effect from the year 2001. According to the original applicants, certain other employees who were similarly situated namely one Mr. ZMS Khan and others for getting the benefit with effect from the year 2001 onwards approached the Tribunal at Patna, by preferring OA No. 75/2008. In the said OA, the Tribunal found that the applicants therein were entitled to the benefit with effect from the year 2001 and therefore passed an order on 13.01.2009. The aforesaid order of the Tribunal at Patna Bench was carried by the respondents therein before the High Court of Jharkhand in W.P.(S). No. 2503/2009 but the said High Court did not interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal and dismissed the petition vide order dated 27.03.2012. The matter was further carried to the Apex Court by preferring SLP (Civil) No. 11219/2012, but the Apex Court did not also interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal or by the High Court and vide order dated 10.04.2013, SLP(Civil)No. 11219/2012 was dismissed.

3. On 12.06.2013, the applicants herein submitted representations individually to the concerned Authority contending that the benefit as conferred by the Patna Bench may also be extended to them. On 27.09.2013, respondent No. 2 issued circular stating that all pending representations of the employees of the Board in respect of the claim of FCS benefits on the basis of the judgment of Tribunal at Patna Bench shall be made available to those applicants who were before the Tribunal at Patna Bench only. The petitioners under these circumstances approached the Tribunal by preferring OA Nos. 1109-1173/2013 and the Tribunal passed the impugned order dated 23.04.2014. Under these circumstances, the present petitions before this Court. It may also be recorded that some other similarly situated petitioners had also preferred respective OAs before the Tribunal for grant of similar benefits. The Tribunal followed its earlier order passed in OA Nos. 1109-1173/2013 dated 23.04.2014 and dismissed those applications also. Against which, separate petitions are preferred by those applicants-petitioners which are also simultaneously considered by this Court in this common order.

4. We have heard Sri. Ranganatha S. Jois, learned Senior Counsel, Sri. Shantakumar K.C., Sri. V. Srinivas and Sri. Kiran Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioners respectively and Sri. M. Vasudeva Rao, learned Standing Central Government Counsel for Union of India, Mrs. Birdy Aiyappa, ASG for Union of India and Sri. N.S. Prasad, learned Counsel for Central Silk Board.

5. The undisputed position is that, the Tribunal upto paragraph No. 21 in the impugned order dated 23.04.2014 has considered the submissions made by both sides. However, in paragraph Nos. 22 and 23, the reasons are recorded which read as under: -

"22. After careful consideration of the above mentioned Supreme Court judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel for either side, we are of the view that the applicants admittedly have not filed M.A. for condonation of delay. The demand of the