The main legal point established in the judgment is that limitation cannot be extended by repeated representations, and the court upheld the Tribunal's decision to reject the original application due to the gross delay and lack of merit.

JUDGMENT

Sandeep Mehta, J. - The petitioner has approached this court through this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for assailing the order dated 20.02.2020 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur rejecting the Original Application No. 290/00286/2013 filed by the petitioner on the ground of limitation.

2. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the writ petition are noted herein below:-

3. The petitioner was initially appointed in the respondent Railways as Khallasi on 25.12.1958. He was given officiating appointment on the post of Mason Grade-III on 04.02.1975 and was regularized on the said post w.e.f. 04.05.1990. The respondents introduced a scheme named Assured Career Progression Scheme (for short, 'ACP Scheme') with effect from 01.10.1999. The scheme proposed a safety net to deal with the problem of stagnation and hardships faced by the employees due to lack of promotional avenues. It was proposed to grant financial up gradation under the ACP Scheme to Group B, C and D employees on completion of 12 and 24 years of service, in case no regular promotion had been granted to such employee. The petitioner superannuated on 01.10.2000. 8 years later, he submitted a representation dated 31.03.2008 to the respondents, followed by a legal notice dated 07.09.2009, claiming financial up gradation under the ACP Scheme. This claim of the writ petition was denied by the respondents by order dated 18.09.2009. Claiming that the denial of financial up gradation gave a recurring cause of action, the petitioner served yet another legal notice dated 25.06.2013 upon the respondents and after receiving a communication dated 10.07.2013 turning down the prayer made in the said legal notice. Thereupon, the petitioner filed the Original Application in question, which came to be rejected by the order dated 20.02.2020 on the ground that the application had been filed after the stipulated period of one year as prescribed under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The said order is assailed in this writ petition.

4. Mr. S.K. Malik, learned counsel representing the petitioner, vehemently and fervently contended that denial of financial up gradation under the ACP Scheme causes repeated loss of salary to the petitioner and hence, the same gives rise to recurring cause of action. He placed reliance on the following judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme court and urged that the Original Application of the petitioner should not have been thrown out solely on the ground of limitation:-

(1) B.S. Sheshagiri Setty & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. [(2016) 2 SCC 123]

(2) Union of India & Ors. v. Tarsem Singh [(2008) 8 SCC 648]

(3) State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO & Ors. [(2005) 3 SCC 752]

(4) M.R. Gupta v. Union of India & Ors. [(1995) 5 SCC 628]

(5) Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Khatiji & Ors. [AIR 1987 SC 1353]

5. Per contra, Mr. Bhanu Pratap Bohra, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the respondent Union of India, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner's counsel. He urged that Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 prescribes a limitation of one year from the date, the cause of action arises for entertaining an original application. The petitioner's grievance that he was denied the benefit of the ACP Scheme arose in the year 2000, but the first representation against this so-called illegal denial was submitted by the petitioner after 8 years on 31.03.2008, which was followed by a legal notice dated 07.09.2009. Admittedly, a communication dated 18.09.2009 was sent to the petitioner turning down his claim with apposite reasons indicating that he was not entitled to the benefit of ACP Scheme because the pay scale, which he was drawing at the time of his retirement was higher than what he would have attained under the financial upgradation stipulated under the ACP Scheme. Mr. Bohra submitted that the petiti