Delay in filing for compassionate allowance cannot be condoned without substantial justification; allowances are not seen as continuous causes of action.

Judgment Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.

The present Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the order dated 09.06.2025 passed in M.A. No.183 of 2025 in O.A.No.693 of 2024 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench whereby the application under Section 21 (2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985 seeking condonation of delay in filing the Original Application has been allowed.

Facts

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent herein filed the Original Application seeking compassionate allowances. The O.A. was filed with a delay of 12105 days for which separate M.A.No.180/183/2025 was preferred seeking condonation of delay of the aforesaid period. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that it cannot be forgotten that the right to receive pension or compassionate allowance is a right inherent in service and is attached to the duties rendered by the respondent herein in the Railway service. The Tribunal further held that the non- payment of compassionate allowance constitutes a continuous wrong and that the delay of more than 33 years shall not stand in the way of granting the same. Thus, the Tribunal allowed M.A.No.183 of 2025 and, being aggrieved thereby, the present Original Petition has been filed by the Railways.

Petitioner’s Contentions

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the learned Tribunal erred in allowing the application seeking condonation of delay in as much as no cogent reasons have been assigned in the application seeking condonation of delay. The application is vague and it does not explain the huge and inordinate delay on a day to day basis. Even the learned Tribunal did not consider the objections raised by the petitioners while allowing the applications. The respondent was removed from service on 10.11.1990 on the ground of unauthorized absence after following due procedure.

3.1 The learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that in M.A.No.183/2025, nothing is mentioned as to what prevented the respondent from approaching the court within time. Not a single document with regard to ailment of the respondent has been brought on record to substantiate their claims merely making averments in the application would not be a ground to condone the inordinate delay. The learned counsel prays for setting aside the order passed by the learned Tribunal and, as a consequence, for dismissal of the O.A. as well.

Respondent’s contentions

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposed the prayer and submitted that the learned Tribunal was right in condoning the delay in as much as the compassionate allowance is the right of the respondent and is a continuing cause of action. The respondent was suffering from mental stress which got enhanced in an aggravated form, therefore, he had to undergo continued treatment for the same for more than a decade in a Sidha Vaidhyashala at Alappuzha. Due to all these unforeseen events which was beyond his control, he could not take proper steps to file the Original Application until 2023. The learned counsel for the respondent further contended that the respondent has also been diagnosed with cancer, and therefore, the delay is bona fide. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Tribunal need not be interfered with. The Original Petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. Heard Sri K.Shri Hari Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt.Anjana Arun, the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.

6. Before coming to the conclusion, we would like to deal with the Apex Court judgments laying down the law so far as the condonation of delay is concerned.

Judicial Pronouncements (1) Karnataka Power Corporation L