Belated service-related claims would be rejected on the ground of delay and laches, except in cases of a continuing wrong. The court may consider the denial of benefits, but the relief of arrears would be restricted to a specific period prior to invoking the remedy before the court or tribunal.

Gita Mittal, J. (Oral)

1. The writ petition has assailed the order dated 30th April, 2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principle Bench, New Delhi dismissing the O.A.No.1659/2012 filed by the petitioner on the ground that the same was barred by limitation. The petitioner had sought the following prayers by way of the O.A.No.1659/2012 before the Tribunal:

“(i) Quash/Set aside the impugned order dated 17.7.2006 passed by the Respondent no.1, whereby the appeal was disposed against the appellants.

(ii) Quash/Set aside the order dated 25.8.2003 passed by the Respondent no.3, whereby the penalty of censure was imposed against the appellants.

(iii) Direct the Respondents to grant first ACP under the financial upgradation scheme w.e.f. 9.8.1999 with arrears and further grant second ACP w.e.f. 1.1.2002 from the date of entitlement.

(iv) Further direct the Respondents to grant promotion w.e.f. 16.7.2001 instead of 29.1.2004 and count his 3 years seniority towards the financial benefits accruing to the applicant as per the existing rules.

(v) Direct the Respondents to fix the pension and retirement benefits of the applicant in terms of the reliefs sought for in the aforementioned paras and pay the arrears thereof immediately.

(vi) Cost of the application be allowed in favour of the applicant.

(vii) Any other relief (s), which this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.”

2. Along with the impugned application, the petitioner had filed an application seeking condonation of delay in raising the challenge pleading sickness to justify the delay in making the claim.

3. Before us it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that he is aggrieved by the violation of Rules by the respondents to fix his pension correctly keeping in view his entitlement based on denial of financial benefits under the first Assured Career Progression Scheme with effect from 9th August, 1999 as well as financial benefits under second ACP Scheme with effect from 1st January, 2002.

4. It is not disputed before us that the petitioner did not make any grievance either by way of representations or by way of an application filed within the period specified under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. The relief in respect of the same was hopelessly barred by limitation on 1st May, 2012 when the petitioner had filed the petition before the Tribunal and sought the above reliefs.

Learned counsel for the petitioner before us has today submitted that the petitioner today does not seek those financial benefits to which he was entitled. He restricts the challenge to the denial of the benefits under the ACPs only so far as they effect fixation of his pension. It is further submitted that the above prayer No.(v) which has been set out above before the Tribunal was directly relating to this claim.

5. It is further contended that so far as fixation of pension and denial of the correct amount of pension is concerned, there is no prohibition to consideration and grant of relief qua person by application of law of limitation. In support of this submission reliance is placed on pronouncement of the Supreme Court reported in (2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 648 entitled Union of India and Others vs. Tarsem Singh.

6. The applicable principle so far as a belated claim is concerned, was laid down in para 7 of this pronouncement which reads as follows:

“To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of in