The court ruled that delay must be satisfactorily explained for condonation; significant delay adversely affects the applicant's ability to seek equitable relief.

ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member)

This MA has been filed by the applicant to condone the delay of 695 days in filing the Original Application (Diary No.469/2013)

2. Brief facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, are as follows: The applicant holds a Graduate Degree from AMIE and a Postgraduate Degree in Structural Engineering. He began his career with the respondent as a permanent way Grade III Inspector on 07.02. 1979. He was promoted to Assistant Engineer on 07.02 1986, and then to Executive Engineer on 22.10.1992. His initial postings were in Chennai, followed by Manamadurai in Madurai. The applicant received 'Good' ratings in his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for 2005-2006 and 2006-2007, with both the Accepting Officer and Reviewing Authority confirming these assessments as 'Fit' for promotion. The second respondent requested remarks and an upgrade for the ACRs from 31.03.2005, to 31,.03 2008. In response, the applicant submitted a representation on 22,.05 2010. However, the respondent issued an order on 06.08. 2010, stating there was no basis for changing the 'Good' grading, followed by another order reinforcing that the grading would remain unchanged. The first order appears to have been issued without thorough consideration, while the second seems to be an attempt to rationalize the first without addressing the totality of circumstances. In respect of average grading and unfit for promotion rendered for the year 2004-2005, the applicant has filed OA (not numbered) along with MA No.353/2013(condonation of delay). In the present application (not numbered), the applicant has challenged the ACR gradings for the years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007, in which he was assessed as ‘Good’ instead of ‘Very Good.’ Due to a delay in filing the OA, he has submitted the current MA to request a condonation of the 695-day delay.

3. The learned counsel for the applicant contended that in the present OA, he has challenged the order of the 1st respondent, which rejected the request to upgrade the ACR grading. He specifically contests the grading for the years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007, which was marked as 'Good' instead of 'Very Good.' The first order dated August 6, 2010, was issued without proper consideration, leading to the conclusion that no change in grading was necessary. The second order appears to be an afterthought. The counsel further argued that the 'Good' grading and the assessment as 'fit' for promotion should qualify the applicant for advancement to the Selection Grade Junior Administrative Grade. He asserts that the applicant should have been assessed as 'Very Good' during the specified periods, and there is no valid reason for the lower grading.

4. He also submitted that the OA in normal course should have been filed by October 6, 2011; however, it was not filed in time. He emphasized that the issue regarding the upgrading of the ACR grading is a continuing cause of action. If the delay is not condoned, it will result in significant hardship and irreparable loss for the applicant. Conversely, if the delay is condoned, the respondents will not suffer any prejudice. Therefore, he requested the court to condone the 695-day delay in filing the OA.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents strongly opposed the applicant's submissions, contending that the cause of action arose in 2010. He argued that the applicant filed the OA belatedly, with a delay of over two and a half years, specifically 695 days, as noted in the application.

6.