Central Administrative Tribunal Mumbai Bench, Mumbai Misc. Application No. 415/2025 in Original Application No. 300/2025 Order reserved on: 08.12.2025 Order pronounced on: 11.12.2025 Coram :

Hon’ble Mr. Umesh Gajankush, Member (J)

1. Shri Dattaram Dhondu Saldur …..Applicant (By Adv: Shri Hamid Patel)

Versus

2. Union of India and Ors.

.... Respondents (By Adv: Smt. N. V. Masurkar)

ORDER

Per : Umesh Gajankush, Member (J)

The present Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the applicant seeking condonation of the delay of 08 months and 17 days in filing the Original Application. In the present case, communication dated 11.07.2023, directing to Sr.P.M., Dadar HO, Mumbai, to make payment of Rs.

6,31,904/- of DCRG and further directing to arrange to recover outstanding govt. dues for an amount of Rs. 2,51,561/- is under challenge. It is submitted that after receipt of the aforesaid communication, a representation dated 18.08.2024 was submitted to the authority. However, when no response was received, an application was filed under RTI Act, 2005 which was replied on 03.12.2024. Thereafter, the present Original Application was filed on

20.03.2025.

2. It is submitted that in view of the aforesaid fact and circumstances of the case, the delay in filing the original application deserves to be condoned.

3. After notice, the official respondents have filed their reply and contested the aforesaid application and submitted that the impugned order sanctioning DCRG with recovery was passed on 11.07.2023 and communicated to the applicant. Therefore, the cause of action, if any, clearly arose from the said date and the limitation for the same have expired on 10.10.2024, whereas the Original Application was filed on 28.03.2025, which is well beyond the reasonable

condonable time. It is also submitted that information under

the RTI and repeated representation or pendency of the reply does not shift or extend the cause of action. The respondents have placed reliance on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India Vs. M.K. Sarkar [(2010) 2 SCC 59] and State of Orissa Vs. Mamata Mohanty [(2011) 3 SCC 436]. It is also submitted that entertaining belated claims after retirement would open floodgates of stale cases, disturb settled financial matters, and create significant administrative difficulties. Further reliance is placed on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.K. Ramachandran Vs. State of Kerala [(1997) 7 SCC 556] and DCS Negi vs. Union of India & Ors, reported in 2011 SCC- online 21. On that basis, the official respondents have prayed for rejection of the prayer made by the applicant through the present Misc. Application.

4. I have heard Shri Hamid Patel, learned counsel for the applicant and Mrs. N.V. Masurkar, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records to the extent of consideration of the application for condonation of delay.

5. Both the learned counsels argued their case as noted

above.

6. After hearing learned counsels for the parties and perusal of the record, it is clear that the impugned communication was issued on 11.07.2023 and thereafter, representation dated 16.08.2024 was filed before the authority, and when no reply was received, information was sought under RTI, which was received on 03.12.2025. It is true that on the basis of RTI, the original cause of action cannot be said to be extended. But the fact remains that when an employee submits any representation before the authority, then it is obligatory on the part of the authority to respond the same as per rules.

7. Under these circumstances, after submission of the representation, if the applicant waited for its decision for considerable time and thereafter sought information under the RTI, this factual explanation can be said to be a reasonable and proper explanation. Further, it is not a stale claim agitated by the applicant before this Tribunal. In fact, after receipt of the impugned communication dated 11.07.2023, he has availed an opportu