K MULLAKOYA vs UT OF LAKSHADWEEP on 9 November 2026

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM Order Sheet Item no.: 4 O.A./280/2026 (LAKSHADWEEP) [ MACP ] [ SENIOR CITIZEN ] Court No.: 1 No of Adjournment: 2 Order Dated: 09/11/2026 K MULLAKOYA Vs UT OF LAKSHADWEEP For Applicant(s) Advocate : Mr. K.B. Gangesh For Respondent(s) Advocate : Mr. Prenjith Kumar K.S. Notes of The Registry Order of The Tribunal MA/620/2026 (for explaining there is no delay) The applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking MACP beneifts with effect from 11.08.2009. When the OA came up for admission, on a prima facie finding that there is delay, the applicant was directed to file application explaning the delay. The present application has been filed by the applicant contending that there is no delay on the premise that, had the MACP claimed by him, been timely granted, it would have reflected in his pension. Hence, the claim is a recurring cause of action. Further, it was submitted that the applications preferred by him on 25.09.2024 and 05.08.2024 were being acted upon by the respondent. To substantiate it, learned Counsel for the applicant relied on Annexure A-4 reply given under RTI application, wherein in answer to question No. 5, he was informed that no final decision has been taken on his request, since his representation has been processed on file for fixing the date of centralised unified screening committee of MACP. Learned Counsel also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and Others v. Tarsem Singh [(2008) 8 SCC 648] to contend that in the case of a continuing cause of action, delay is immaterial. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tarsem Singh did not hold that in the case of a continuing cause of action, claim can be filed at any time and delay is immaterial. It only held that such belated application cannot be rejected at the threshold, but relief can be granted for a period of three years prior to the institution of applications. Hence, for applying Tarsem Singh's case, existence of delay is material. In this case, the precise contention is that there is no delay, being a continuing cause of action. However, we find that his cause of action arose admittedly on 11.02.2009. The learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that after retirement in 2019, he demanded MACP in 2014 only. Though at the time of admission hearing, learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that he has filed other applications, they are not forthcoming. The cause of action arose on 11.08.2009. Absolutely, no explanation as to why applicant did not move the Tribunal for 17 years, is forthcoming. Learned Counsel for the respondents rightly placed reliance on the decision in Chief Executive Officer v. S. Lalitha [(2025) KHC 6393], especially paragraph 23, wherein it has been held that stale 11/11/2026, 09:27 cis.cgat.gov.in/catlive/internal/order_content_view.php?no=84609

claims cannot be revived by submitting successive applications. Even assuming that the application was filed in 2014 or even at a date prior to that, that only shows that a stale claim is sought to be revived after a span of 17 years. Still the applicant contended that there is no delay relying on Tarsem Singh's case. We find that there is considerable unexplained delay in filing the application and the claim is hopelessly barred by limitation. MA fails and is dismissed. On the basis of the finding in the MA, that the application is belated, the OA is rejected as time barred. V RAMA MATHEW MEMBER (A) JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS MEMBER (J) A X ( steno 'c' )

Case No O.A./280/2026 Ernakulam Bench List In: Main causelist Item No. 4 Generated by Sherin A.X CAT Central Administrative Tribunal Ernakulam Bench on 10/11/2026

11/11/2026, 09:27 cis.cgat.gov.in/catlive/internal/order_content_view.php?no=84609

2026.11.11 09:54:21+ 05'30' A X Sherin