Delay in filing applications for relief must be adequately explained; mere claims of continuing wrong do not suffice if inaction persists over an extended period.

Per: Justice Sunil Thomas, Judicial Member The applicants joined as Refrigerator Mechanic (skilled) under the respondents. Pursuant to the introduction of 3rd Central Pay Commission, an expert clarification Committee was appointed by the respondents to submit reports on the upgradation of posts from skilled to highly skilled and to highly skilled Grade-1 etc. Based on the report of expert clarification Committee, Annexure A-5 order was issued by the Ministry of Defence by which the then existing scale of pay of Refrigerator Mechanic was claimed to have been upgraded from Rs.260- Rs.400/- to Rs.330- Rs.480/-. According to the applicant though Annexure A-5 was communicated to the Controlling officers of all stations of MES, the same was not implemented for reasons known to the respondents. While so, one of the colleague of the applicants N. Appukuttan Nair approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench to get benefit. By Annexure A-7 order, the application was allowed and relief was granted to the applicant therein. According to the applicants herein, inspite of Annexure A-5, Annexure A-7 was not immediately implemented. It was implemented only after much delay.

2.According to the applicants, claiming the same relief applicants and similarly situated other employees have been repeatedly submitting representations to the Head of offices, evidenced by Annexure A-8 to A-11 covering period from 2003 to 2023 requesting to refix the pay to Rs.330-Rs.480/-. Some of the other colleagues had gone upto the Supreme Court.

The applicants therein, were granted relief only in 2023 by Annexure A-13.

3.Claiming the same relief the applicants have approached this Tribunal by filing the present OA on 20.02.2024. Stating that a delay of 14528 days had occurred in filing the OA, the applicants sought for condonation of delay, by filing the present Miscellaneous Application.

4.Detailed objection was filed by the respondents wherein all the allegations were traversed. It was contended that the applicants were not entitled to any of the reliefs sought. It was further contended that N.Appukuttan Nair was wrongly granted by Annexure A-7 order, though it was not challenged. It was only an individual relief granted to the applicant therein. The applicants fully knowing that they had a grievance remained silent atleast from 2003 onwards and after much delay has approached this Tribunal. Accordingly, by virtue of Sec.21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, the application is not sustainable. It was further contended that the delay has not been satisfactorily and properly explained.

5.Evidently, the applicants are claiming relief by virtue of Annexure A-5. The respondents in their objection specifically contended that the applicants are not entitled to the relief granted to N. Appukuttan Nair. It was stated that a fitment of industrial workers in MES in the 5 scales of pay referred to para-(1) thereof, is as per the details set out in Annexure A-1 thereof. In Annexure1 of Annexure A-5, the post of applicants 1, 3 and 4 was at Sl.No.32 with existing pay scale of Rs.260- 350/- , which was revised to Rs 260- 400/- The 2nd applicant was a Motor Pump Attendant, which was at Sl.No.14, with existing pay scale of Rs.210- 290/-, which was revised to Rs.260- Rs.400. Further, the para (iii) of Annexure A-5 and Annexure III thereof, stated that higher pay scale of applicants in the OA i.e. Rs.330-480/- were “scales to be introduced” for job titles outlined therein. It was also contended that by Annexure A-7 order of Chennai Tribunal it did not adjudicate on this issue and had not rendered any decision on merits of the case. Hence, Annexure A-7 will not help the applicants in any manner, especially at this distance of time, it was contended. The applicants have not established in their pleadings that they fell within the above category referred in Annexure III.

6.The applicants have specifically disclosed that they were aware of Annexure A-5 order granting