Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 6717
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Om Prakash VII, J, Mohan Pyare, Member (A)
Anjay Kumar Sinha – Appellant
Versus
Union of India through the General Manager, North Central Railway, Headquarter, Prayagraj – Respondent
Miscellaenous Application No. 5957 of 2024 | OA bearing Diary No. 7850 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Ashish Srivastava
For the Respondents: Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan
A belated service claim challenging promotion orders after an inordinate delay will be rejected on grounds of laches and acquiescence, as promotion is not a recurring cause of action and reopening the issue would prejudice the settled rights of third parties.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Delay and Laches - Condonation of Delay - A service-related claim challenging promotion orders from 2008 and 2010 filed after a delay of about 14 years is liable to be rejected on the grounds of inordinate delay, laches, and acquiescence. The principle of a 'recurring cause of action' does not apply to promotions, as reopening the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties. Persons who do not challenge a wrongful action in time and acquiesce are to be treated as 'fence-sitters' and cannot claim benefits later. (Paras 7, 8)
(B) Acquiescence - A party who remains silent and does not challenge an order within the limitation period is presumed to have 'acquiesced the position'. Such a party, having slept over their rights for a considerable period, cannot be permitted to agitate their claim at a belated stage, especially when it affects the rights of others. (Para 7, 9)
Facts of the case:
The applicant challenged orders dated 30.06.2008, 01.12.2008, and 16.10.2010, through which he was denied promotion while other respondents were promoted. He filed an Original Application with a delay of approximately 14 years, seeking condonation by citing postings in remote locations and arguing that the cause of action was recurring.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal found the reasons for the delay insufficient, noting that the applicant was sleeping over his rights and had acquiesced to the situation. Relying on established legal principles, the court determined that promotion is not a recurring cause of action and that entertaining the stale claim would unjustly affect the settled rights of the promoted individuals. The applicant was deemed a 'fence-sitter' who could not be granted relief after such an inordinate delay.
Issues: Whether the inordinate delay of about 14 years in challenging promotion orders could be condoned, and whether the grievance constituted a recurring cause of action.
Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal reasoned that a person who is not vigilant of his rights and remains sleeping for about 14 years cannot be allowed to agitate his claim at such a belated stage. Citing Supreme Court precedents, it was held that while a continuing wrong can be an exception to the rule of delay, claims involving seniority or promotion that affect third parties render the claim stale. The applicant's inaction amounted to acquiescence, barring his claim.
Result: The delay condonation application was rejected, and the Original Application was consequently dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. case background and reliefs sought. (Para 1 , 2 , 6) |
| 2. arguments for and against condonation of delay. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. application of laches, acquiescence, and recurring cause principles. (Para 5 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. final dismissal due to inordinate delay. (Para 9) |
ORDER
(Delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
Shri Ashish Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for the respondents, were present at the time of hearing on Delay Condonation Application No. 5957 of 2024.
2. The brief facts of the case are that by means of the subject original application, the applicant is praying for quashing of the impugned order dated 30.06.2008, 01.12.2008 and 16.10.2010 issued by the respondent no. 1 and also seeks a direction to the respondents to promote the applicant after reexamining his answer sheet based on model answer sheet and he may be considered for promotion. There is a considerable delay in filing the instant original application and to justify the same, the applicant has also preferred a delay condonation application vide MA No. 5957 of 2024 along with the OA.
3. Arguing upon the delay condonation application, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has challenged the order dated 30.06.2008, 01.12.2008 and 16.10.2010 passed by the respondents whereby the applicant has been denied promotion but the respondent no. 4 and respondent no. 5 were illegally promoted. Learned counsel further argued that applicant is a permanent resident of Visakhapatnam and he remained posted on remote placed during his service and due to this reason, he could not approach before the Tribunal challenging the aforesaid orders timely. It is also argued that the cause of action is a recurring cause. Promotion should have been given to the applicant but instead respondent no. 4 and 5 were promoted. Referring to the facts disclosed in the affidavit annexed with the delay condonation application, it was also argued that as and when the applicant gathered courage, he approached before the Tribunal challenging the aforesaid orders. It is also mentioned in the affidavit annexed with the delay condonation application that in July, 2024, the applicant was promoted to the post of ACM, Group B cadre and he is contining as ACM Tundla till date. It is further argued that delay occurred in filing the OA is not deliberate or intentional and if the delay condonation application is not allowed and delay occurred in filing the OA is not condoned, the applicant will suffer irreparable loss and injury and thus prayer was made to allow the delay condonation application to decide the matter on merits.
4. Although written objection to the delay condonation application, has not been filed on behalf of the respondents but learned counsel for the respondents orally argued that the applicant has challenged the promotional order dated 30.06.2008, 01.12.2008 and 16.10.2010. It is also argued that the case of the applicant is not a recurring cause. Since the applicant did not approach before the Tribunal within the limitation period for redressal of his grievance, thus, it shall be presumed that he has acquiesced with the position. Referring to the facts disclosed in the affidavit annexed with the delay condonation application, learned counsel for the respondents argued that reasons assigned for delay in filing the OA are not sufficient to allow the same. The applicant was sleeping over his rights for about 14 years and thus he cannot be permitted to agitate the impugned orders justifying the delay which is inordinate. It was further argued that cause of action shown in the affidavit is not a recurring cause as would be clear from the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its judgment dated 13.08.2008 passed in Civil Appeal No. 5151-5152 of 2008 titled Union of India & Ors vs. Tarsem Singh. Thus, argued to reject the delay condonation application and also to dismiss the O
