Stale Claims Cannot Be Revived by Belated Representations: Supreme Court on Limitation in Service Matters
- Chintan Shah
- Apr 25
- 4 min read
Summary of the Judgment
Case Name: The Chief Executive Officer & Others v. S. Lalitha & Others
Citation: 2025 INSC 565
Court: Supreme Court of India
Date of Judgment: 24 April 2025
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dipankar Datta and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Advocates: Not expressly named in the judgment
Applicable Acts/Sections:
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (Sections 19, 20, 21)
Constitution of India (Articles 15(3), 41, 142)
Schemes Involved:
Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme, 1999
Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme, 2009
Key Cited Judgments:
B.D. Kadam v. Union of India, 2017 SCC OnLine Kar 4772
Union of India v. N.M. Raut, 2024 INSC 1042
Union of India v. S. Ranjit Samuel, 2022 INSC 340
Vice Chairman, DDA v. Narendra Kumar, (2022) 11 SCC 641
C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining, (2008) 10 SCC 115
Union of India v. M.K. Sarkar, (2010) 2 SCC 59
State of Uttaranchal v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari, (2013) 12 SCC 179
Union of India v. Chaman Rana, (2018) 5 SCC 798
S.S. Rathore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1989) 4 SCC 582
Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648
Background
The present appeal arose from a short order passed by the High Court of Karnataka dismissing a writ petition filed by the appellants, aggrieved by a favourable order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Bengaluru, in favour of the respondent, S. Lalitha. At the heart of the dispute was the interpretation and retrospective application of the ACP and MACP Schemes with respect to service benefits for government employees.
The respondent, a TV News and Film Librarian at Doordarshan, had already availed benefits under both schemes, but much later challenged the nature of those benefits, contending that she was entitled to higher grade pay under the original ACP Scheme.
Evolution of the Dispute
The transition from the ACP to the MACP Scheme caused considerable confusion. The ACP provided financial upgradations after 12 and 24 years, whereas the MACP, post Sixth Pay Commission, introduced benefits every 10 years but limited to the next grade pay, not necessarily a promotional post.
The respondent had been granted benefits under both schemes at different times without objection. However, she later submitted a representation seeking retrospective application of the ACP’s second upgradation and an adjusted benefit under MACP. This representation was rejected. She then moved the Tribunal, which ruled in her favour. The High Court concurred, referring to the B.D. Kadam decision. The appellants, undeterred by procedural compliance, sought reconsideration on grounds of evolving jurisprudence and belated representation.
Key Legal Issues
1. Maintainability and Limitation
A critical focus of the Supreme Court’s judgment was whether the original application before the CAT was time-barred under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
“The respondent ought not to have waited for so long for ventilating her grievance through a belated representation.”
The Court noted that the respondent accepted the benefits under the MACP Scheme in 2010 and 2015 without protest and only approached the authorities in 2016. Her application before the CAT was filed in December 2016—well beyond the one-year limitation period prescribed by the Act.
This ruling reinforces the judicial stance that stale or dead claims cannot be revived through belated representations, even if such representations are rejected by the administration.
"The cause of action cannot be deferred by making a highly belated representation and awaiting its outcome."
This principle has been iterated in several precedents, including M.K. Sarkar, Chaman Rana, and C. Jacob, emphasising that administrative silence or rejection of delayed claims does not furnish a fresh cause of action.
2. Misapplication of Precedents
The Supreme Court found that both the Tribunal and the High Court failed to address the limitation objection and instead over-relied on the B.D. Kadam decision without examining whether the factual matrix truly aligned.
While the Tribunal’s reasoning followed Kadam, the Supreme Court clarified that the precedents must be applied contextually, not mechanically.
3. Differentiation from N.M. Raut
The Court drew a crucial distinction between the present case and Union of India v. N.M. Raut, where employees had already benefited from non-functional upgradation and hence were not stagnating—a condition that disqualified them from further MACP benefits.
In contrast, the respondent here had not been promoted and had stagnated in her role. Thus, the facts of N.M. Raut could not be imported wholesale.
“This appeal calls for a different perspective.”
Use of Constitutional Remedies
Though the Court ruled that the original application was time-barred, it invoked Article 142 to balance strict legal principles with equitable considerations. The respondent, now a retired woman with limited financial means, had already received the monetary benefits following the Tribunal’s order. The Court, therefore, chose not to order recovery, citing the respondent’s right to dignity in old age.
“During the winter years of her life, financial support will become essential to ensure that she can live a life of dignity and purpose.”
The invocation of Articles 15(3) and 41 to buttress the relief given is a poignant reminder of the Court’s power to do complete justice, especially in service matters affecting aged women employees.
Takeaways
Timeliness is Critical in Service Matters: The judgment is a strong reiteration that delay and laches can defeat an otherwise tenable claim. Representations do not extend limitation unless statutorily prescribed.
Equity vs. Legality: While legal principles prevailed in determining the maintainability, equity was considered in crafting the remedy under Article 142—reinforcing the importance of context in judicial outcomes.
Schemes Must Be Read with Their Objectives: The shift from ACP to MACP was rooted in systemic overhaul, and courts must examine such schemes’ objectives before granting relief, especially in retrospective claims.
Caution on Precedent Application: This judgment reminds legal practitioners to assess the factual proximity of precedents before citing them for analogous relief.
Conclusion
In The Chief Executive Officer & Others v. S. Lalitha & Others, the Supreme Court meticulously parsed through the evolution of government service benefits, procedural compliance under the Administrative Tribunals Act, and the boundaries of judicial equity. While legally the respondent’s claim was barred, human considerations shaped the final relief.
This decision is not just an adjudication of a service dispute—it is a template for future service law adjudications involving delayed claims, non-statutory representations, and judicial compassion in retirement scenarios.
Comments