S. Selvaraj vs Union Of India & Ors.

The applicant has filed MA 346 of 2026 to condone the delay of 19 days in representing the OA (Dy. No.410 of 2026). Accepting the reasons set forth in the affidavit filed in support of the MA, the delay is condoned. Accordingly, MA 346 of 2026 is allowed.

In the MA 347 of 2026, the applicant has prayed for waiving the period of 6 months provided in the Rules for exhausting the remedy and permit him to file the OA to redress his grievance in respect of grant of notional promotion to the grade of Inspector of Central Excise with effect from 07.09.1999 , the date on which other sports persons were granted out of turn promotion.

The facts of the case in a nutshell are as follows:

The Applicant, presently working as Superintendent of Central Excise, joined the Central Excise Department as Upper Division Clerk (UDC) on 27.10.1993 under the Sports Quota, on account of his proficiency in Volleyball. During service, he represented India and Tamil Nadu in several national and international events, including the World Police and Fire Games, Stockholm, 1999, where he won a Silver Medal. He also participated in various national, departmental and beach volleyball championships and was selected for the Asian Beach Volleyball Tournament, China, 2000, but could not participate due to delayed Ministry approval. Since certain sports-quota recruits had been granted out-of-turn promotion (OTP) to Inspector, the Applicant sought similar promotion by representation dated 18.08.1999. The request was rejected/declined on 10.09.1999, communicated on 17.09.1999, on the ground that the then prevailing norms did not make him eligible and that, thereafter, only sportsmen representing India in international meets would be considered. Subsequently, Establishment Circular No. 4/2000 dated 15.03.2000 prescribed guidelines for OTP and, inter alia, provided that a sports-quota recruit who had represented India in an international game after joining the Department would be eligible. The Applicant thereafter submitted representations dated 05.05.2000 and 20.03.2001, pointing out his achievements and the grant of OTP to certain colleagues who, according to him, did not satisfy the prescribed criteria. The Applicant was ultimately promoted as Inspector of Central Excise in the normal course on 19.12.2002, instead of being granted OTP. Subsequently, the Department of Revenue, Government of India, vide communication dated 30.04.2003, directed withdrawal of Establishment Circular No. 4/2000 as being beyond the statutory Recruitment Rules. Accordingly, the said circular was withdrawn vide Establishment Circular No. 02/2003 dated 09.12.2003. The Applicant contends that the denial of OTP, despite his sports achievements and the alleged grant of OTP to similarly placed/less-qualified colleagues, resulted in continuing prejudice to his seniority, pay fixation and pensionary benefits. He therefore submitted a further representation dated 20.01.2026 seeking restoration of pay parity and consequential benefits, which remains unconsidered to date.

On the facts stated above, the Application is liable to be dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay and laches. The Applicant's claim for out-of-turn promotion arose, at the latest, in 1999–2000, when his representations dated 18.08.1999 and 05.05.2000 were considered in the light of the prevailing norms. The Applicant thereafter submitted a further representation on 20.03.2001, but did not pursue the matter before the appropriate forum within a reasonable period. The Applicant was subsequently promoted as Inspector in the normal course on 19.12.2002. Significantly, the very Establishment Circular No. 4/2000, on which the Applicant seeks to rely, was directed to be withdrawn by the Department of Revenue on 30.04.2003 and was ultimately withdrawn on 09.12.2003. Despite being fully aware of the relevant facts and the withdrawal of the said circular, the Applicant did not challenge the denial of out-of-turn promotion or seek appropriate consequential relief for more than two decades.

The filing of a fresh representation dated 20.01.2026 cannot revive a stale claim or create a fresh cause of action. It is settled that a representation submitted after an unexplained and inordinate delay does not extend or reset the limitation period, particularly where the claimant was aware of the alleged wrong and the consequential prejudice long ago. The Applicant's present grievance regarding seniority, pay fixation and pensionary benefits is merely a consequence of the alleged denial of out-of-turn promotion in the years 1999–2002 and cannot, by itself, constitute a continuing cause of action so as to condone the extraordinary delay.

Further, entertaining such a belated claim after the passage of more than two decades would seriously prejudice the administration and unsettle matters relating to seniority, promotion and service benefits, which have long since attained finality. The Applicant has also failed to furnish any satisfactory or legally sustainable explanation for not approaching the competent forum within the prescribed or reasonable period. Accordingly, the Application suffers from gross and unexplained delay and laches. The subsequent representation dated 20.01.2026 does not cure the delay or revive the stale cause of action. The Applicant, having slept over his alleged rights for an inordinate period, cannot seek to reopen settled service matters at this belated stage. The Application is therefore liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, without going into the merits of the claim.

In view of the foregoing findings, the Miscellaneous Application seeking waiver of the appeal period does not merit consideration and is liable to be dismissed. The Applicant has failed to establish any exceptional circumstance warranting dispensation of the available statutory/departmental remedy.

Further, as the Original Application itself suffers from inordinate and unexplained delay and laches, and the belated representation dated 20.01.2026 cannot revive a stale cause of action, no relief can be granted to the Applicant at this stage. Entertaining the claim after a lapse of more than two decades would also unsettle matters relating to seniority, promotion and consequential service benefits which have long since attained finality.

Accordingly, M.A. 347 of 2026 seeking waiver of the appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the unnumbered Original Application is also dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. Registry to number the OA for record purpose. No order as to costs.