CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM BENCH Wednesday, this the 31^st day of December, 2025 CORAM:

HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K. HARIPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE Mrs.V.RAMA MATHEW, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

1. Balakrishnan PM, aged 72 years, S/o (late) K. Madhavan, Retired Stenographer Grade I and Personal Assistant to Additional Director General, O/o the Director General, Assam Rifles, Shillong, Residing at Melapazherickal House, Kulathur Prayar P.O., Kottayam District, Pin-686 541

2. M Balachandran Nair, S/o (late) Madhavan Pillai, Aged 73 years Retired Stenographer Grade I, Personal Assistant to Commandant, Assam Rifles, Training Centre & School, P.O. Dimapur, Nagaland, Residing at Sree Prasadam, Netaji Nagar, P.O. Valuthungal, Kollam District, Pin-691018 -Applicants [By Advocates: Mr. M.R.Hariraj (Sr.), Ms.Alina Anna Kose, Ms.Akhila S., Ms.Karthika Ganesh, Mr.Vishnu Prasad N.K., Ms.Sandhra Maria Sebastian, Mr.Nayanlal A, Ms.Jayalakshmi G Nair, Mr.Sangeeth Krishna G.S., Mr.Sheron Williams, Mr.Arun Thampi M.K.]

V e r s u s

1. Union of India, represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi – 110 001

2. The Director General, Assam Rifles, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, Shillong-793 010 -Respondents [By Advocate: Mr.M.K.Padmanabhan Nair, ACGSC]

The application having been heard on 26.11.2025, the Tribunal on

31.12.2025 delivered the following order:

O R D E R

Justice K.Haripal, Judicial Member This is the second time that the applicants approach this Tribunal for consideration. Earlier, when the matter had come up for admission, the O.A. was considered along with M.A/698/2024, an application for condoning delay. However, finding that the O.A. is barred by limitation, without admitting the same, the M.A was dismissed and the O.A was rejected. Challenging that order, the applicants moved the Hon'ble High Court with OP(CAT) 73 of 2025, which was allowed and the matter was remanded to this Tribunal holding that 'the O.A. stands restored to the file and for consideration of M.A/698/2024 restricting to the averments made in the paragraph 11'.

2. In para 11 of the M.A, it is submitted that the issue involved gives rise to recurring and continuing cause of action, so that the O.A. is not barred by limitation. The respondents did not file any written objection against said M.A. However, the M.A was rejected since it was noticed that the applicants had retired from service on 31.03.2011 and 31.08.2009 respectively, that the process of medical check-up and training test are part of combatisation process which were completed in November 2011 and the applicants had to undergo a medical examination, which was not done and thus the application was rejected holding that the O.A. is barred by limitation. That order has been set at naught by the High Court in OP(CAT). Thus the matter was heard again.

3. At the final stage of hearing also, the learned Standing Counsel submitted that the cause of action is not continuing. But having regard to the nature of the contentions raised by the applicants, it appears that the cause of action is continuing. If the prayer for combatisation was allowed, they would have been enrolled in the force in 1989/1990 onwards since Annexure A-3 was passed on 19.09.1989. At that time, three months time was granted for giving option. The applicants have a case that the options submitted by them were not considered and that they were not given the benefit of enrolling in the combatised force and thus they have suffered huge monetary loss. In the circumstances, the cause of action can be deemed continuing and therefore we were inclined to hear the merits of the case.

4. Both the applicants were Stenographers Grade-I in the Assam Riffles under the Ministry of Home, Government of India. They had commenced service as Lance Naik (Writer) under the 2^nd respondent on 07.01.1972 and 11.05.1971 respectively. According to them, they had undergone basic soldiers training and became trained s