Introduction (Paras 1-4):

The petitioner, an 81-year-old retired customs officer, challenged the Central Administrative Tribunal's (CAT) dismissal of his application seeking rectification of his promotion date from 16.04.1997 to 15.03.1997 for the purpose of securing one additional increment.

Factual Background (Paras 5-7):

• Service Details: The petitioner served as Assistant Collector of Customs (Preventive) and was promoted to Assistant Commissioner (Senior Time Scale) in 2000, with the promotion dated retrospectively to 16.04.1997.
• Claim of Erroneous Date: The petitioner alleged that his promotion should have been effective from 15.03.1997, and the erroneous date deprived him of one additional increment on 01.03.2002, affecting his pension.
• Representations and CAT Application: The petitioner claimed to have submitted representations since 2021, but the respondents argued these were unsupported by proof. The CAT dismissed his application due to delay.

Respondents' Objections (Paras 8-11):

• Delay and Laches: The respondents contended the claim was barred due to a 21-year delay since the issuance of the promotion order in 2000.
• No Proof of Representations: The petitioner failed to substantiate his claim of making multiple representations.
• Tribunal’s Observations: CAT noted that the cause of action arose in 1997, and the petitioner’s inaction during his service period or immediately after retirement made the claim untenable.

Legal Principles and Analysis (Paras 12-16):

• Doctrine of Delay and Laches:
  • The court reiterated that litigants must approach promptly, citing Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. T.T. Murali Bau (2006) 4 SCC 322 and Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Prosper Armstrong Hurd (1874) 5 PC 221.
  • Delay extinguishes the cause of action, and stale claims harm judicial equity.
• Tribunal’s Findings: The CAT rightly held that the petition was filed after an unreasonable delay and noted that mere representations do not extend the limitation period.
• Inapplicability of Rule 11, CCS Rules: The court held that the petitioner should have raised the claim during service or soon after retirement.

Conclusion and Decision (Paras 17-19):

• The High Court upheld the CAT’s dismissal of the petition, emphasizing the principle that delay defeats equity.
• The petition was dismissed as belated, with no costs awarded.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1960 (CCS Rules): Rule 11, concerning the increment on revised scales.
2. Articles of the Constitution:
   • Article 14: Equality before the law.
   • Article 21: Protection of life and personal liberty.
   • Article 300A: Right to property.

Ratio Decidendi:

Delay and laches bar the exercise of equitable relief. Litigants must assert their rights within a reasonable timeframe, as mere representations do not extend the limitation period. Claims arising from service-related disputes must be pursued diligently.

Subjects:

Service Law, Doctrine of Delay and Laches, Promotion Disputes.

Writ Petition, Service Jurisprudence, Delay in Litigation, CAT Orders, Increment Claims, Judicial Equity.