it2025_00890 — Inordinate Delay defeats the claim of the litigant

Inordinate Delay defeats the claim of the litigant — This chunk discusses a concern about courts or tribunals entertaining applications or petitions based on belated representations regarding stale or dead issues, while ignoring the delay preceding the... — Facts: The Applicant joined as Postal Assistant on 17-10-1979 in the pay scale 260-8-300-10-360. He was subjected to Rule 14 enquiry after keeping him under suspension and in consequence of such proceedings, punishment of withholding of 3 increments for a period of 3 years without cumulative effect was imposed on him. Owing to this punishment, he became ineligible to cross the Efficiency Bar, which was due to him in the month of October, 1985, and the same was delayed by three years, till 1988. Immediately, after completion of his earlier punishment, another punishment was imposed, under Rule 16, by an Order, dated 8-12-1988, withholding one increment for a period of three years, against which the Applicant preferred an appeal and on his appeal, the Appellate Authority ordered conduct of enquiry under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, without setting aside the punishment imposed in the Rule 16 Enquiry. Aggrieved with that, the Applicant approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 1163 of 1996. And, the Tribunal, by Order, dated 5-2-1999, set aside the punishment Order, dated 8-12-1988. After his retirement in the year 2003, the Applicant made a representation, dated 26-11-2015, to the 4th Respondent requesting him to grant him the increments that were left out by the department from 1989 to 1994, and in response he had received the reply, dated 23-12-2015, from the 4th Respondent and the 3rd Respondent, stating that the version of the Applicant could not be verified since his service book, personal file and relevant case files had already been weeded out. Following the above replies, he again made representations, in 2016 to the 3rd Respondent, enclosing a calculation sheet of his basic pay. His representation was forwarded to the 4th Respondent who, had passed the impugned Order, dated 7-6-2016, stating that the correctness of the Applicant's contentions could not be verified since the matter relates to 1985 to 1988 and his service book, personal file and relevant case files were already weeded out. Aggrieved with the order / reply given by the Respondent, he filed O.A No. 1261 of 2016 before this Tribunal which was disposed of with direction to the Respondent to pass speaking order on the subject matter. The first Respondent passed the impugned Order, dated 8-8-2019, wherein the Applicant's claim was rejected by saying that there is delay on the part of the Applicant and records are not available. Aggrieved with that, he filed this OA to get remedy and justice on various grounds including the rule relating to retention of records as per which the records should have been preserved. Respondent resisted the OA mainly on the ground of inordinate delay. Arguments were heard and documents perused. The operative portion of the initial penalty order was as under:- "As the Applicant is not aggrieved by the order passed under Rule 14 and has only challenged the order passed under Rule 16, we are satisfied that this is a case where the earlier order passed under Rule 16 has to be set aside and as such the impugned order in this application is set aside and the Applicant shall be given the benefit if he had lost anything by implementing the order passed under Rule 16. It is made clear that the order passed under Rule 14 is not interfered by us as the Applicant himself has not asked for that. This penalty order was modified on 8-10-1999 as under:- "It is further directed that Shri R. Parakalan will not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and that on the expiry of this period, the reduction will not have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay." The representations purportedly submitted by the Applicant while in service were of 29-2-2002, 15-2-2003 and of 17-2-2003. There is no acknowledgement in respect of these representations. Post retirement, his representation is of 26-11-2015 that is also 12 years after his superannuation. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices has disposed of his representation, vide Letter, dated 23-12-2015 as follows:- "It is intimated that the correctness of contention of your representation which relates to 1985 to 1988 could not be verified since your service book, personal file and relevant case files had already been weeded out." His representation, dated 7-3-2018, met with same response on 19-5-2016. Thereafter, the Applicant, has further agitated the matter at the belated stage. The Tribunal in its Order, dated 18-7-2018, in O.A. No. 1261 of 2016 that observed inter alia as under :- 8. ........If the first Respondent arrives at a conclusion that the records were not correctly weeded out for no fault of the Applicant, he shall reconsider the Annexure-A/14 communication and pass a reasoned order on the claim of the Applicant. Needless to say that in the event of records not having been weeded out, the Applicant's claim shall be re-examined in the light of available records and a reasoned and speaking order passed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 9. It is clarified that the merits of the Applicant's claim have not been gone into in this OA and the Respondents are at liberty to pass an order in accordance with law. OA is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. In compliance with the aforesaid directions of this Tribunal, the claim of the Applicant was considered but dismissed on account of delay and laches by Order, dated 8-8-2019, of the D/o. Posts." The Tribunal referred to the Judgment, dated 8-12-2009, of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8151 of 2009, in the case of Union of India and others v. M.K. Sarkar, relied upon by the Respondents which is as under:- 9. The order of the Tribunal allowing the first application of Respondent without examining the merits, and directing Appellants to consider his representation has given rise to unnecessary litigation and avoidable complications. The ill-effects of such directions have been considered by this Court in C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining and another. [ 2009 (10) SCC 115 ] : "The Courts / tribunals proceed on the assumption, that every citizen deserves a reply to his representation. Secondly they assume that a mere direction to consider and dispose of the representation does not involve any 'decision' on rights and obligations of parties. Little do they realize the consequences of such a direction to 'consider'. If the representation is considered and accepted, the ex-employee gets a relief, which he would not have got on account of the long delay, all by reason of the direction to 'consider'. If the Representation is considered and rejected, the ex-employee files an application / writ petition, not with reference to the original cause of action of 1982, but by treating the rejection of the representation given in 2000, as the cause of action. A prayer is made for quashing the rejection of representation and for grant of the relief claimed in the representation. The Tribunals / High Courts routinely entertain such applications / petitions ignoring the huge delay preceding the representation, and proceed to examine the claim on merits and grant relief. In this manner, the bar of limitation or the laches gets obliterated or ignored." When a belated representation in regard to a 'stale' or 'dead' issue / dispute is considered and decided, in compliance with a direction by the Court / Tribunal to do so, the date of such decision cannot be considered as furnishing a fresh cause of action for reviving the 'dead' issue or time-barred dispute. The issue of limitation or delay and laches should be considered with reference to the original cause of action and not with reference to the date on which an order is passed in compliance with a court's direction. Neither a court's direction to consider a representation issued without examining the merits, nor a decision given in compliance with such direction, will extend the limitation, or erase the delay and laches.