A significant delay in filing an application must be justified with sufficient cause; mere oral assurances do not constitute adequate grounds for condonation.

ORDER

Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A): -

By way of the present M.A., the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs: -

“a) Allow the present application and may kindly condone the delay of approximately 7 years in filing the O.A. i.e. 2555 days.

b) Pass such or other further order that this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the above mentioned O.A. has been filed before this Tribunal by the applicant and is fixed for 17.12.2024. He further states that on perusal of the contents of the O.A., its ground and the documents are annexed therewith, it is evident that the applicant has a plausible case in his favour. The O.A. is likely to be succeeded. He contends that the applicant preferred a representation to the respondent on 23.06.2017 thereby requesting for promotion in pursuance to his merit in the list of the selected candidates of IP examination 2015-2016 held on 22/23.10.2016. After filing the said representation the applicant kept on pursuing his representation and made several requests orally. The respondent kept on assuring the applicant that he will be promoted but after making several reminders though orally, nothing fruitful came out. He further contends that the delay of approximately 7 years in filing the present O.A. is bonafide as the applicant was hopeful and believed the assurances given by the respondents to be true. He prays that the delay may be condoned otherwise the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss which cannot be compensated.

3. Counter reply has been filed by the respondents on 20.07.2025 wherein they have stated that the present M.A. has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act seeking condonation of delay of approx. 7 years in filing O.A. The Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 , deals with the limitation. reads as follows:-

“21. Limitation - (1) A Tribunal shall not admit an application, -

(a) in a case where a final order such as is mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 20 has been made in connection with the grievance unless the application is made, within one year from the date on which such final order has been made;

(b) in a case where an appeal or representation such as is mentioned in clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 20 has been made and a period of six months had expired thereafter without such final order having been made, within one year from the date of expiry of the said period of six months. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), where -

(a) the grievance in respect of which an application is made had arisen by reason of any order made at any time during the period of three years immediately preceding the date on which the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunal becomes exercisable under this Act in respect of the matter to which such order relates ; and

(b) no proceedings for the redressal of such grievance had been commenced before the said date before any High Court, the application shall be entertained by the Tribunal if it is made within the period referred to in clause (a), or, as the case may be, clause (b), of sub-section (1) or within a period of six months from the said date, whichever period expires later. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1) or sub- section (2), an application may be admitted after the period of one year specified in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) or, as the case may be, the period of six months specified in s