THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER & OTHERS  [APPELLANTS] VS. LALITHA & OTHERS [ RESPONDENTS]

CIVIL APPEAL NO. /2025 ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NO.6289/2019

(2JB, DIPANKAR DATTA and RAJESH BINDAL JJ., delivered by DIPANKAR DATTA, J.)

The appeal challenges a Karnataka High Court order dated March 8, 2018, which dismissed a writ petition filed by the appellants against a Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) decision dated August 1, 2017. The Tribunal had allowed the respondent’s application, directing higher grade pay under the Assured Career Progression (ACP) and Modified ACP (MACP) schemes. The respondent, a Doordarshan employee since 1985, initially received benefits under the ACP scheme in 2002. With the introduction of the MACP scheme in 2009, she later received two financial upgradations under it without objection.

In 2016, the respondent sought retrospective benefits under the ACP scheme with higher grade pay. Upon rejection, she approached the Tribunal, which ruled in her favor, citing the B.D. Kadam case. The High Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision, noting the Supreme Court had dismissed an SLP in Kadam. Although the government later filed another SLP in a related matter (pending as of December 2023), the Court found no reason to interfere.

The appellants raised a new objection, arguing the original application was time-barred under the Administrative Tribunals Act. However, this limitation issue was neither addressed by the Tribunal nor the High Court. The Supreme Court referred to precedent (e.g., C. Jacob, M.K. Sarkar) emphasizing that stale claims, even if revived by representations, cannot be entertained after long delays. While ultimately the Court declined to interfere, it highlighted the importance of considering limitation issues in service-related disputes and criticized the lower courts’ oversight in this case.

In Orissa v. Laxmi Narayan Das (2023), the Supreme Court reiterated that unexplained delay and laches can disentitle a party from relief under Article 226. The Court cited precedents to affirm that delay in invoking remedies—such as a writ petition filed 46 years after a record’s final publication—is grossly belated. It held that a discretionary remedy like a writ may be denied where undue delay causes prejudice or is indicative of negligence.

In the current appeal, the respondent claimed entitlement under the ACP Scheme only in 2016, although financial benefits had been extended under the MACP Scheme years earlier. Despite the representation being rejected swiftly, it was deemed a non-statutory representation. The Court clarified that merely filing such a belated representation does not reset the limitation clock. Under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, Sections 20 and 21 impose specific timeframes—usually one year after final order or expiry of six months from a representation’s filing.

The Court emphasized that if service rules do not provide a statutory remedy, the CAT may entertain a direct application. However, if statutory remedies exist, they must be exhausted. The respondent’s delay in filing an application, relying on a non-statutory representation, rendered the application time-barred.

Nonetheless, invoking Article 142, the Court declined to order a refund of the benefits already granted, citing the respondent’s age, retirement, and Article 15(3) and 41 of the Constitution. Thus, while legally the claim was barred by limitation, equitable considerations led the Court to let the financial benefits remain.