Last Updated on March 12, 2026 by Satish Mishra

Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 mandates that the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) generally will not admit applications filed more than one year after the cause of action or final order (e.g., rejection of a representation). If a statutory appeal/representation is pending, this period is extended by six months.

Key Aspects of Limitation Rule in CAT:

Initial Limitation: An application under Section 19 must be filed within one year from the date on which the final order was made or a representation was rejected.
Pending Representation: If an appeal or representation was made and no final order was passed, the application must be filed within one year from the expiry of six months from when the representation was made.
Condonation of Delay: The tribunal has the power to condone delay if the applicant can satisfy them with a “sufficient cause” for not making the application within the prescribed time.
Not Applicable to Belated Representations: The Supreme Court has ruled that a time-barred service dispute cannot be revived by filing a belated representation.
Time Calculation: Limitation begins from the date of communication of the final order, not necessarily the date of the order itself

The Post covers Limitation Rule CAT Tribunal Chandigarh Bench wherein the condonation of delay application dismissed as per rule.

Limitation Period

The literal meaning of the term ‘Limitation’ is a restriction or the rule or circumstances which are limited. In legal terms, there is a limit to filling a litigation and once should be vigilant enough to litigate within a specified time. If the litigation is filed after the expiry of the days mentioned, it will be barred from limitation and The Court might not accept the litigation. In India, The Limitation Act, came into force on 1963 and it prescribes a period in which one can file a suit. Supreme court in various judgments held that the limitation act is retrospective so far as they apply to all legal proceedings brought after their operations for enforcing causes of action accrued earlier. In this case study, the applicant filed an application in the Central Administrative Tribunal for the order dated way back in the year 1998.

Also Read- CAT Tribunal Chandigarh

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which talks about the Condonation of Delay which prescribes that the applicant has to satisfy the court in giving sufficient cause for appealing late or delay in appeal, and if the applicant is able to do that then the Court may accept his application and if not, the Court may reject the application as well. Here sufficient cause means, reasonable ground for which there was a delay in litigation in Court. Whether an applicant has given a sufficient cause or not depends upon the discretion of the court and the circumstances of each case. The litigant should act with sensible and reasonable diligence in prosecuting the appeal. Here, the Central Administrative Tribunal observed that there was no sufficient ground in the condonation of delay of the application that was filled for the order dated for the year 1998.

Also Read- Res Judicata in CAT Tribunal Chandigarh Cases

Birbal Kumar vs Union of India

Brief facts in the application

The applicant filed the application to question the order dated 23.12.1998 and 17.01.2019 where respondent have imposed punishment for serving the period between 07.08.1992 and 09.07.1997 as dies non (day on which no legal business can be done). The applicant along with the above application have filed a miscellaneous application in relation to condonation of filling the original application after 7335 days. The applicant in the defence of the delay in filing the original application cited the decision by Honourable Supreme Court in Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another Vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 1987 AIR 1353 in which it was held that the expression “sufficient cause” is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on merits. The applicant had filed a Review Application, which was not decided earlier, has now has been decided (order dated 17.01.2019) and thus, he has filed the original application.

Also Read- MACP CAT Tribunal Bench Case Legal Advice

Order by the Tribunal

The tribunal was of the opinion that the application is to be dismissed as there this huge delay can not be condoned and if the applicant had some problems with the order which was given in the year 1998 then he could have challenged it before the Court of Law. The original application which was filed after 21 years and such belated stage cannot be accepted. In the recent judgement by Honourable Supreme Court in Prahlad Raut Vs. AIIMS, 2020 (2) SLR 431, The Court held that making a representation will not extend limitation. The cause of action accrues on the date when the order is passed and the appeal/representation, provided under law, is disposed of. In case such order is not passed then the cause of action shall accrue on the expiry of six months from the date of filing of such appeal or representation.

The applicant instead of getting remedy from the Disciplinary Authority, the applicant chose to file a Review Application without there being any provision under the Rules. Therefore, the applicant is dismissed as it is time barred.

Also Read- HOUSE ACCOMODATION CASE CHANDIGARH CAT

For case specific advice, please contact Chandigarh Administrative Tribunal/Service Matter/Labour and Service/CAT/Legal Aid/Administrative/Senior/Service Employment Lawyers Advocates in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Kharar Derabassi Zirakpur etc.

Post Written by – Research Team of LegalSeva (LawFirm) of Satish Mishra Advocate. Responses from Google’s AI Overview included in Post.

Disclaimer: This is for informational purposes only. Consult a qualified lawyer for advice specific to your case.