Condonation of inordinate delay in filing a review application is not permissible when the applicant was a party to the original proceedings and the relief sought (seniority refixation) would disturb settled third-party rights, as it does not constitute a 'continuing wrong'.

laches because the grievance made by B. S. Bajwa and B. D. Kapoor only in 1984 which was long after they had entered the department in 1971-72. During this entire period of more than a decade they were all along treated as junior to the other aforesaid persons and the rights inter se had crystallised which ought not to have been re-opened after the lapse of such a long period. At every stage the others were promoted before B. S. Bajwa and B. D. Kapoor and this position was known to B. S. Bajwa and B. D. Kapoor right from the beginning as found by the Division Bench itself. It is well settled that in service matters the question of seniority should not be re-opened in such situations after the lapse of a reasonable period because that results in disturbing the settled position which is not justifiable. There was inordinate delay in the present case for making such a grievance. This alone was sufficient to decline interference under Article 226 and to reject the writ petition.

8. In view of the above conclusion it is not necessary for us to express any opinion on the merits of the point raised by B. S. Bajwa and B. D. Kapoor. We make it clear that the view thereon taken by the High Court is not to be treated as concluded or having affirmation of any kind. The appeals of B. S. Bajwa and B. D. Gupta are dismissed and the appeal filed by D. P. Bajaj and Jagir Singh is allowed. With the result that the judgment of the single Judge of the High Court is set aside and the writ petition filed by B. S. Bajwa and B. D. Kapoor stand dismissed.”

2.2 The applicant has filed the RA No.148/2025 as well as present OA seeking Review of the Order dated 13.2.2015 in OA No.431/2015, and condonation of delay on the following grounds:

(i) The applicant was not aware of the order dated 13.2.2015 in the above-mentioned OA;

(ii) The respondents should have granted similar benefits as has been granted to applicants in OA No.1917/2011, OA No.122/2019 and 1885/2023.

(iii) The delay in filing RA should be condoned applying the ratio of judgement of Apex Court in K.C. Sharma & Ors Vs. Union of India, 1997 (6) SCC 7 decided on 25.7.1997.

3. Notices were issued on MA No.3724/2025. The respondents sought time to file reply in respect of the MA. However, when the matter was taken up on 3.12.2025, the learned counsel for the respondents, on instructions, stated that she is prepared to argue the matter in the MA without filing written reply in respect of the MA. Accordingly, the MA for condonation of delay was heard for final adjudication on 3.12.2025.

4. Submission by learned counsel for the Applicant

4.1 Learned counsel for the applicant, relying on the pleadings in MA states that the subject matter in RA as well as OA is in the nature of continuing wrong. The respondents have extended similar benefits to other applicants in OA No.1917/2011, OA No.122/2019, and OA No.1885/2023. Moreover, in K.C. Sharma (supra) case, the Apex Court in a similar situation has quashed the order of the Tribunal passed in OA No.774 of 1994 wherein this Tribunal has dismissed the said OA on grounds of delay and latches.

4.2 The learned counsel for the applicant reiterated the pleadings in the MA that main reason for the applicant for filing the RA with delay of several years is that the applicant

6.6 The question here is whether the present case deserves to be treated as exception to exception as outlined in the aforementioned judgment of the Apex Court in Tarsem Singh (supra). We find that it is not a case where the applicant is agitating the matter in an OA. It is a matter where the applicant seeking Review of the Order passed by this Tribunal after a lapse of nearly 10 years. Even the applicant has not revealed the exact period of delay in filing the present RA. The sole reason given in the MA is the lack of knowledge of the order passed in the OA on 13.2.2015. The present applicant in the MA was also an applicant in the OA. Hence, it can not fall under the category of continuing