Prolonged delay in asserting rights can result in denial of judicial relief, emphasizing the need for prompt action to maintain claims.

ORDER

By Hon’ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Member (Judicial)

Heard Shri Kishore Rai, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri T. C. Aggarwal, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This Original Application u/s 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 has been filed seeking following relief:-

“i. An order or direction, commanding the respondent to regularize the services of the applicant and treating the services of the applicant as regular for all purposes.

ii. an order or direction commanding the respondent authorities to disburse or pay the retrial due or benefit which includes pension, gratuity funds and any other benefits along with consequential benefits, forthwith as per applicable rule.

iii an order or direction to pay interest on delayed payment of retrial benefits at the rate of 12% per annum from the date an amount become due until the date of actual payment.

iv. pass any other order or relief that this Hon'ble Tribunal deems just and proper in the interest of justice.”

3. The factual matrix of the case, as submitted by the applicant, is as follows:

3.1 The applicant was appointed as causal labour on 01.09.1965 in department of the 3rd respondent. The department conferred the applicant a Temporary status of C.P. Chowkidar (watchman) casual labour on 14.07.1993 after satisfactory service rendered by the applicant in the department. The applicant got superannuated on 04.09.2023 from the department after attaining the age of superannuation. The applicant got certain information through RTI Application that similarly situated persons like the applicant are given pension by the department. Therefore, the applicant on 31.05.2025 made representation to the respondents. Since there was no reply, the applicant preferred the original application. The applicant has now approached this Tribunal through a Miscellaneous Application seeking condonation of delay for a period of 6600 days (18 years) in filing the Original Application.

3.2 In the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay, it is stated that the subject matter of the Original Application pertains to the regularization of the service of the applicant, since the applicant was granted temporary status in the year 1993. The applicant joined the department in the year 1965 and was granted temporary status in the year 1993 and superannuated in the year 2003 on attaining the age of superannuation. He further stated that various courts have held that services rendered by the applicant previously would be counted for the purpose of pension. He also further submitted that other persons/employees retired from the department who are similarly situated persons like the applicant are receiving pension. Pensionary benefit is purely a recurring cause of action law of limitation cannot be applied strictly. Therefore, the applicant is legally entitled for the relief sought in the original application.

3.3 The original limitation is one year from passing of order but the application could not be preferred within time due to lack of knowledge about the remedy. Moreover, the applicant is residing at a very remote area and living in indigent condition facing acute financial hardship as such the delay is liable to be condoned.

4. The respondents have filed a reply statement contesting the application for condonation of delay. By referring to the various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is stated in the reply that the instant application has been filed belatedly after a delay of more than 21 years and without any cogent reason for the inordinate delay and latches and the same is not maintainable. According to them, the present matter pertains to an application filed after an inordinate and unexplained delay of more than 21 years, seeking relief on grou