JUDGMENT

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQU E,J:

This original petition was filed by the applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam. The petitioner joined the Military Engineering Service as Lift Attendant on 30.3.1988. The petitioner is still in service. He was granted the first ACP and second MACP on 1.9.2008 and third MACP in the grade pay of Rs.2800/-. According to him, he was granted the pay as an unskilled labourer. Actually, he is a skilled labourer. Therefore, he claims, he should be granted financial up-gradation at par with the skilled labourer. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench dated 17.9.2018.

2. It appears that he made a representation only on 13.1.2023, after the long lapse of upgradation of his pay. The Tribunal, noting that long delay involved in the matter cannot be condoned, dismissed the application at the threshold without going into the merits of the case. Challenging this, the petitioner has approached this Court.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Central Government Counsel.

4. Learned Central Government Counsel submits that the petitioner woke up from the slumber after more than a decade and the delay cannot be condoned. It is further submitted that the Tribunal was not satisfied with the explanation in the affidavit filed in support of the petition under Section 21(3) of the Administrative Tribunal Act.

5. It is true that there is a long delay.

The claim of the petitioner is a differential claim. But it is to be noted that if he is otherwise entitled, he would have continued to draw his salary at the rate applicable to the skilled labourers. That means, he has a recurring cause of action as to the up-gradation of his pay. According to us, if he is found to be entitled, he cannot claim such a benefit from the date it was originally due as he has slept over it for a long. But that shall not result in complete denial of his up-gradation of pay. If the Tribunal finds that he is entitled, the Tribunal can very well restrict claiming arrears for three years anterior to filing the petition.

6. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the impugned order is to be set aside ad we do so. The Tribunal shall consider the matter on merit, in accordance with law. Parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 27th February,2024.

The Original Petition (CAT) is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE sd/-

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN MBS/ JUDGE APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 194/2023 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH IN OA NO 996/2015.

Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED

13 .012023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OA NO.180/00279/2023 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE LEARNED CAT, ERNAKULAM.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED

18.09.2023 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE LEARNED CAT, ERNAKULAM.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.A.NO.180/00279/2023 DATED 10.10.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CAT, ERNAKULAM.