Central Administrative Tribunal Mumbai Bench, Mumbai Misc. Application No. 44/2025 (in Original Application No. 51/2025)

Order reserved on: 10.09.2025 Order pronounced on: 19.11.2025 Coram :

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

Smt. Mumtaz Iliyas Khan …..Applicant (By Adv: Shri A.V. Shinde)

Versus Union of India and Others, .... Respondents (By Adv: Shri N.K. Rajpurohit)

ORDER

Per : Umesh Gajankush, Member (J)

By filing the present in Misc. Application, the applicant has explained the delay in filing the Original Application by stating that after completion of total 32 years and 16 days of service she has retired to the post of Senior Peon on VERMA VIJAY KUMAR VERMA 31.10.2015 on superannuation. The Applicant states that out of her entire 32 years and 16 days of service, 4 years 11 months and 17 days are treated as Non-Qualifying service and total qualifying service was 27 years and 29 days.

2. The Applicant further states that she has submitted representation dated 28.08.2017 stating that even after she had work for the period of 32 years she is getting a very less pension of Rs. 18,000/- per month but no reply has been received till date.

3. The applicant submits that she is a senior citizen suffering from co-morbidities and stringent travel conditions on multiple occasions due to her post operational health condition due to her abdominal hysterectomy operation, knee replacement surgery and Fabriodaters. Similarly, the causes mentioned above of delay submission were beyond the control of the applicant. The applicant states that there is an inadvertent delay of about 8 years for filing the present original application.

4. It is further submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in M.R. Gupta Vs. Union of India and Ors., 1995 SCC (L&S) 1273, wherein it is stated that a continuing wrong giving rise to a recurring cause of action every month on the occasion of payment of salary, such application to the extent of proper pay fixation, held, not time barred although the applicant's claim to consequential arrears would be subject to the law of limitation. Explaining the delay and relying on the judgements, it is submitted that delay in filing the present Original Application may be condoned in the interest of justice.

5. On the other hand, by filing the reply in and contesting the Misc. Application, it is stated that the applicant has not given satisfactory reasons for the condonation of delay. All the documents enclosed along with the application up to year 2013, prior to her retirement i.e. on 31.10.2015. Further, the applicant is not entitled to take the benefit of COVID-19 period and therefore, on the basis of the reply, the official respondents have prayed for rejection of the Misc.

Application.

6. Thereafter rejoinder was also submitted by the applicant explaining and elaborating they delay and of Union of India Vs. Tarsem Singh, Civil Appeal No. 5151- 5152 of 2008, in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the salary and pension are continuing cause of action and therefore, in case of continuing cause of action, there is no delay.

7. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the records.

8. It is specifically stated by the applicant in her application that she had worked for period of 32 years and getting a very less pension of Rs. 1800/- per month. Further, looking to the averments made in the application, it is prima facie clear that the applicant is suffering from various illnesses. In fact, she is a decategorized employee served to the Railways which is not under dispute. Even in case Original Application is allowed, the applicant may get enhanced pension on the basis of her qualifying service as claimed by her. Meaning thereby, as on date she claims that she is getting less pension every month. Therefore, taking into consideration the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the explanation offered by the applicant can be accepted. Even otherwise, in view of the