Is an application to the Tribunal for retrospective monetary benefits filed after retirement hit by limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985?

Union of India preferred these writ petitions, challenging the orders passed by Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Chennai Bench. Since the facts involved and issues raised between parties are one and the same, Writ Petitions are taken up together and common order is passed.

Respondents herein were initially engaged as Project Casual Labourers during various years commencing from 1972 to 1982. Railways had taken a decision to confer temporary status to these Casual Labourers and consequently, temporary status was granted in the year 1983 in pursuance of the Circular of Ministry of Railways dated 11.09.1986. The Circular was issued in compliance of the orders of Supreme Court in Union of India vs. K.G.Radhskrisha Panikar¹ . These Casual Labourers, who were conferred temporary status of Casual Labourers, continued in service for long time and therefore, they were absorbed in the permanent Establishment. They served as permanent employees in Railways and retired from service. One Thirunavukkarasu approached Court, claiming conferment of retrospective / temporary status as Casual Labourers along with monetary benefits with arrears. The said Thirunavukkarasu succeeded and relying on the said case, a line of cases were filed by various other retired employees, claiming retrospective conferment of temporary status as Casual Labourers with monetary benefits right from the date of temporary status. CAT in the case of one B.Vadivelu and M.Raju @ Raji dismissed Original Applications² against which both filed W.P.Nos.29791 and 29793 of 2019 before Division Bench of this Court, in which, it was observed by Division Bench on 21.10.2019 that Thirunavukkarasu’s case³ cannot be followed as a precedent. Paragraph Nos.9 & 10 of the judgment are extracted below:

However, in respect of subsequent Original Applications filed before CAT, it was allowed in favour of employees, relying upon Thirunavukkarasu’s case and thus, Union of India preferred present Writ petitions.

Facts are not disputed. All respondents were engaged as Project Casual Labourers and conferred temporary status based on Railway Circular of the year 1986. Subsequently, they were absorbed and retired from service. Question arises whether such Original Applications can be entertained by CAT after prolonged period for grant of monetary benefits with retrospective effect from the date on which these respondents were conferred temporary status. First of all, Original Applications filed belatedly are hit by Limitation as contemplated under Section 21 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Sub-section 1 to Section 21 reads as under:- “21. Limitation - (1) A Tribunal shall not admit an application,- (a) in a case where a final order such as is mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 20 has been made in connection with the grievance unless the application is made, within one year from the date on which such final order has been made; (b)in a case where an appeal or representation such as is mentioned in clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 20 has been made and a period of six months had expired thereafter without such final order having been made, within one year from the date of expiry of the said period of six months.”

Secondly, these Project Casual Labourers were engaged for completion of Railway Project. However, temporary status was conferred to them pursuant to orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Railways took a decision to permanently absorb these temporary Casual Labourers on compliance of certain conditions and consequently, all these employees were brought under regular Establishment as permanent employees and retired from service. Thus, claim of retrospective monetary benefits from the date of conferment of temporary status is hit by Limitation and to be construed as stale, since they were absorbed as permanent employees and by reckoning their qualifying services, terminal and pensionary benefits were also settled.

As far as case of Thirunavukkarasu’s case is concerned, Division Bench in the case of Vadivelu (cited supra) held that the said case cannot be followed as a precedent in perpetuity.

This Court is of the considered view that applications filed in verge of retirement or after retirement by these employees ought not to have been entertained by CAT, as it is hit by limitation as contemplated under Section 21 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. That apart, Division Bench of this Court held in Vadivelu's case that the case of Thirunavukkarasu shall not be followed as a precedent. Before passing of impugned orders in the present Writ Petitions by CAT, Vadivelu's case itself has been dismissed by CAT and therefore, there is no other changed circumstances for CAT to take a different view and allow Original Applications filed in the year 2019 and 2023. Even if CAT condoned the delay, the said condonation made is running counter to the principles, since such a long delay is to be construed as uncondonable delay. Courts are empowered to condone delay in filing, if such delay is for a reasonable period. If delay is prolonged or enormous, such delay cannot be condoned, as it is uncondonable. Condonation of enormous delay and entertaining Original Applications for grant of monetary benefits would cause prejudice to Exchequer, as the claim is for payment of arrears of monetary benefits in the present case from the date of conferment of temporary status. Retrospective benefit is sought from 30 to 40 years before. Therefore, the claim itself is untenable.

In view of the facts and circumstances, Writ Petitions are allowed. Impugned orders passed by CAT in O.A.Nos.1628 of 2023, 1315, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1319 and 1320 of 2019 are set aside. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (N.S.,J.) 23-07-2026