Inordinate delay in filing claims impedes equity and requires reasonable justification, which was not established in this case.

ORDER

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

This MA has been filed by the applicant to condone the delay of 21 years, 6 months and 2 days in filing the Original Application.

2. The relief sought by the applicant in the OA is as follows:

“i) call for the records related to the Railway Board order in respect of Note 7 of Rule 7 and Rule 8 of the Railway Services (Revised) Pay Rules, 1986, dated19.09.1986, the A-9 Notification on the subject of Pay Fixation on stepping up of pay on par with juniors pay and after adding due increment before fixing the pay in revised pay and the A-7 rejection order No. U/P.721/GA/TN/24/99 dated20.04.1999 not allowing the option for allowing the increment due on 01.01.1986 before fixing the pay in the revised scale and to set aside the same as the A-7 decision is contradicting pay commission fixation Rules Note 7 of 7 and 8 of the principle of natural justice and Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India ;

ii) issue of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or orders or directions, in the nature of Writ direct the respondents to fix thepay of the applicants as per the option and the A-4 fixation proposal and to step up of the applicant's pay on par with the pay of the juniors whose pay had been fixed on the option;

iii) Pass such other orders that are deemed just, fair and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. The factual matrix of the case are as follows:

The applicant was initially engaged as a Project Casual Labourer on daily wages in June 1980 for special works on the Sakkottai–Punalur section. He was granted Temporary Status on 01.01.1984, brought under the CPC pay scales, and posted as a CPC Gangman under the project. Subsequently, the Railway Board implemented the 4th Central Pay Commission (CPC), revising the pay structure. However, the 3rd respondent applied these revisions only to regular employees and not to casual labourers under CPC scales. As a result, an Original Application No. 835 of 1986 was filed before this Tribunal, which led to the implementation of the revised pay scale for project casual labourers as well. The applicant and his juniors were drawing the same basic pay and annual increments. He was regularized as a Gangman on 26.12.1989. The Railway Board issued an order allowing employees who were drawing annual increments as on 01.01.1986 in the pre-revised scale to opt for pay fixation under the revised pay scale. However, the applicant was unaware of this order dated 05.05.1995. Consequently, while his juniors received higher pay (Rs. 811), his pay remained at Rs. 799. Although the applicant had submitted his option in April 1988, he was never informed of the 05.05.1995 order. The 3rd respondent refused to process his pay fixation, stating that the option had not been submitted within the prescribed six-month period from the date of the order. This rejection was formally communicated to the applicant on 21.09.1998. The applicant made further representations, including one on 16.03.1999 during the Pension Adalat, but the 3rd respondent again rejected his request on 20.04.1999. He submitted another representation on 03.01.2003, seeking stepping up of his pay on par with his juniors as per Railway Service Rules, 1986. This representation remains undisposed to date. The applicant retired on superannuation on 28.02.2013. Despite his retirement, the pay anomaly during his service period was never rectified. Therefore, the applicant has now approached this Tribunal through a Miscellaneous Application seeking condonation of delay for a period of 21 years, 6 months, and 2 da