Claims for pensionary benefits must be filed within the statutory limitation period; stale claims cannot be revived by belated representations.

ORDER

HON’BLE MR. D. S. MAHRA MEMBER (J)

01. The applicant was initially engaged as a Daily Rated Worker in the year 1971 in the Power Development Department and was subsequently regularized against a Class-IV post. Thereafter, the applicant was promoted as Lineman on 28.06.1980 and eventually superannuated from service on 31.08.2007.

02. The present OA has been filed by the applicant with the following prayers:

(a) The respondents/non-applicants may be directed to release the pensionary benefits in favour of the applicant, in light of No. 767/2012 dated 20-05-2013, as also in terms of SRO 59 of 1996, in such higher grades in favour of the applicant as he is entitled to the same treatment, as given to the similarly situated employees. 

(b) The respondents may be further directed to settle the claim of the applicant, in light of the judgment passed in SWP No. 767/2012 dated 20-05-2013, with further direction to the respondents that they shall release all the arrears in favour of the applicant, which would accrue by fixing the pension of the applicant, in such higher grades, with all consequential benefits.

(c) Any other relief, order or direction as deemed fit by the Hon’ble tribunal may aiso be passed to serve the interests of justice.

03.Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is entitled for the benefits of SRO 59 of 1990 with effect from 1980 and that the Hon’ble High Court of J&K in the case of Bashir Ahmad Bhat vs. State of J&K (SWP No. 767/2012, decided on 20.05.2013) has already settled the issue in favour of similarly placed employees. The operative portion of the judgment, is reads as follows:

“In view of the above, the writ petition succeeds and the respondent No. 5, Accountant General, is directed to finalize the pension case of the petitioner and issue pension payment order in line with the observations made hereinabove. Respondents 2 is also directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of arrears of pay to which he is entitled to under rules.”

04.Learned counsel for the applicant further contends that, as per the directions passed by the Hon’ble High Court in the aforementioned judgment, the applicant is equally entitled to the upgradation of pay scale under SRO 59 of 1990, and consequential refixation of his pension. He, therefore, prays for issuance of appropriate directions to the respondent department to grant the benefits of the said SRO to the applicant along with all consequential monetary benefits including arrears of pension.

05. He further submitted that the applicant has also submitted a representation dated 12.07.2024 before the respondents, requesting consideration of his claim for refixation of pay and pension in terms of the applicable rules and the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the said representation is still pending for consideration, and no action has been taken by the respondents till date.

06. On the other hand, Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the applicant superannuated on 31.08.2007 and has now filed the present OA in 2024, after an inordinate delay of nearly 17 years. He submits that the cause of action, if any, had arisen long back, and such stale claims cannot be agitated before this Tribunal at such a belated stage. He further submitted that the applicant has not even filed an application seeking condonation of delay as mandated under Section 21(3) of the Central Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

07. Learned counsel for the respondents further contends that the representation dated 12.07.2024 cannot revive a cause of action that is otherwise barred by limitation. He submits that repeated or belated representations do not extend the period of limitation, and tha