In short. The reasons for condonation of delay that tribunals accept share one feature: they are true, specific and backed by papers. Serious illness, time spent honestly in the wrong forum, an order never served on you, and a lawyer's lapse are the commonest. Ignorance of the law and waiting for colleagues' cases rarely work. If your OA is late under Section 21, the application explaining the delay is decided before the merits, often at the first or second hearing. This week, list every period since the final order and find one document for each.
Is this your situation?
- The final order or the rejection of your appeal is more than a year old and you have not filed an OA.
- You were seriously ill, in hospital, or caring for a family member during that year.
- You went to the High Court, a labour court or a consumer forum first and were told CAT is the right place.
- The order was sent to an old address or handed to someone else, and you saw it much later.
- Your earlier lawyer did not file the case as promised.
- You waited because colleagues with the same grievance had a case pending.
- You are a retiree or a family member who learned of the right only recently.
In short
- Explain the whole gap, not just the last part. Benches look at the period from the date limitation ended to the date of filing, and want to know what happened in each part of it.
- Attach a document for each reason. A discharge summary, a court order, a postal record or a letter from the earlier lawyer counts far more than a sworn statement alone.
- Do not exaggerate. A claim of illness for eight months, supported by records for two, can sink an otherwise sound application.
- Repeated representations do not reset the clock. Writing again and again to the department is not, by itself, a good reason for delay.
- The shorter the delay, the lighter the burden. A few weeks late with a clear reason is treated very differently from six years late with a general one.
- Expect the delay question first. The tribunal should decide condonation before it looks at the merits of your claim.
What 'sufficient cause' means in a service case
Section 21(3) of the Administrative Tribunals Act lets the tribunal admit an OA filed after the one-year period if the applicant shows sufficient cause for not filing in time. The Act does not define sufficient cause, so the meaning comes from decisions under the Limitation Act and from the tribunal's own practice.
The Supreme Court's approach since Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji (1987) has been to read the phrase liberally so that justice is not refused on technicalities, while still insisting that the cause be real. Esha Bhattacharjee (2013) and Pathapati Subba Reddy (2024) restated the balance: a party who has been careless or deliberately sat on a right is not to be helped, but a party who acted in good faith and was prevented by circumstances should be. The merits of the main case are not supposed to decide the delay question.
In service law two more ideas weigh heavily. First, settled matters should stay settled: other employees' seniority and promotions may have been fixed on the basis of the order you now challenge. Second, the department cannot be made to defend claims decades old without good reason. Both push benches to look harder at long delays, especially in seniority and promotion cases. When you know how limitation is counted, the job of explaining delay gets easier; our guide on when the one-year clock starts covers that part.
Common reasons for condonation of delay and how benches see them
| Reason given | Usual view | What makes it work |
|---|---|---|
| Serious illness of the applicant | Often accepted | Hospital or treatment records covering the period claimed |
| Illness or death in the immediate family | Often accepted for the period it actually covered | Death certificate, hospital papers, proof you were the carer |
| Case pursued in good faith in the wrong forum | Usually accepted for the time spent there | Copy of the petition and the order returning or dismissing it |
| Order never served or sent to an old address | Accepted if the record supports it | Postal return, change of address on record, date you got a copy |
| Earlier advocate failed to file | Often accepted when shown with papers | Letters, receipts, or the advocate's own note |
| Posting in a remote station, sea duty or deputation abroad | Considered, not decisive | Posting orders and proof of limited communication |
| Waiting for a colleague's case or a policy decision | Usually rejected | Rarely works unless the department promised to extend the result |
| Ignorance of the law or the rule | Usually rejected | Almost never enough on its own |
| Repeated representations and reminders | Rejected as a ground by itself | Only the first statutory representation or appeal counts for limitation |
Illness: the reason most often given and most often doubted
Illness delay condonation works when the illness was serious enough to stop someone from instructing a lawyer and the records show it. A stroke, a major surgery with a long recovery, cancer treatment, or a psychiatric illness requiring admission are all examples that benches regularly accept for the period they covered.
What fails is the vague medical certificate from a private doctor saying the applicant was 'advised rest' for six months, issued on one date for the whole period. Benches have seen too many of these. Prescriptions, test reports, admission and discharge summaries, and bills spread over the months claimed carry far more weight.
Be precise about the dates. If you were in hospital from March to May and then recovering at home till July, say exactly that, and explain what you did from August onwards. An application that says 'the applicant was unwell during the relevant period' invites the department to ask which period, and the bench to ask the same.
Time spent in the wrong forum
Many employees, and many lawyers, start in the wrong place: a writ in the High Court, a complaint before the labour commissioner, a consumer case over pension, or a civil suit. When the forum says the matter belongs to CAT, the time spent there in good faith is generally allowed, on the principle in Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
Good faith is the key. If the petition was filed in the High Court after the tribunal's jurisdiction was obvious, or was kept pending for years without pressing it, the bench may not give full credit. The order of the other forum matters too. An order that records 'dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal' helps more than a plain dismissal.
File in CAT quickly after the other forum's order. Every week between that order and your OA is a period you will have to explain separately, and benches are less forgiving of delay that comes after the applicant already knew where to go.
When the order never reached you
Limitation runs from the date of the order or of its communication, depending on the rule involved and the facts. If an appellate order was sent to a station you had left, or to your old quarters after you retired, or was handed to a relative who never passed it on, the delay may be shorter than it looks, or there may be none at all.
Proof decides this. Ask the department, in writing or through RTI, for the dispatch register entry and the address used. Keep the envelope if it reached you late, with the postmark. If you applied for a copy and got it on a particular date, the application and the covering letter show when you learned of the order.
This is a factual dispute, and the department will often say the order was sent properly. The tribunal then weighs the records on both sides. An employee who had given a new address in writing before the order was sent stands on firm ground.
Your earlier lawyer did not file
The Supreme Court said in Rafiq v. Munshilal (1981) that a party should not suffer for the default of the counsel it trusted, and benches apply that in service matters too. But the application must show what you did: when you gave the papers, what you were told, how you followed up, and when you found out nothing had been filed.
Messages, receipts for fees, letters and the return of your file are the evidence here. If the earlier advocate is willing to give a short note admitting the lapse, that helps a great deal. Courts dislike general complaints against an unnamed lawyer with nothing to back them.
There is a limit. Someone who handed over the papers and then did nothing for three years cannot blame the lawyer for all of that time. The bench expects a reasonable person to ask what is happening with their case.
Reasons that rarely work, and why
Ignorance of the law. Not knowing that you could challenge the order, or that a time limit existed, is almost never accepted by itself. It may carry some weight for a Gramin Dak Sevak in a rural area, a widow with little schooling or a Group D retiree, when combined with other facts, but it is not a stand-alone ground.
Waiting for others' cases. Employees often wait to see how a colleague's case turns out and then file once it succeeds. The Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava (2015) described such people as fence-sitters, and a long delay for that reason is usually not condoned, though a judgment meant to apply to the whole class can change the position.
Repeated representations. S.S. Rathore v. State of M.P. (1989) settled that only the statutory appeal or representation provided by the rules extends limitation. Reminders, fresh representations and petitions to ministers do not. C. Jacob (2008) and M.K. Sarkar (2010) add that a direction to 'consider' an old representation does not revive a claim that was already stale.
Continuing wrongs, such as wrong pay fixation or pension calculation, are treated differently, because each month's short payment is a fresh grievance; see our guide on continuing wrongs in pay and pension. Even there, how far back arrears go depends on the delay.
Does every day need to be explained?
The phrase 'every day's delay must be explained' appears in many old judgments, and departments quote it often. Katiji itself warned against reading it in a pedantic way. What benches expect today is a day by day explanation in substance, not literally: the whole period should be accounted for in blocks, with each block tied to a reason and a document.
A practical way is to break the period from the end of limitation to the filing date into segments. For each, state the dates, what was happening, and the paper that shows it. Short gaps between segments, a week here and there for getting copies or meeting a lawyer, can be explained in a sentence and are usually accepted.
Where there is a gap with nothing to show, say so plainly rather than covering it up. A delay explanation that honestly admits you were trying to arrange money for the case, or were waiting to hear back from the department, is better than an invented reason that the department can disprove.
The provisions and decisions behind condonation
Section 21(1) and (2), Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985
One year from the final order, or where an appeal or representation was made and not decided, one year from the end of the six months allowed for deciding it.
Section 21(3), Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985
Allows a late application if the applicant shows sufficient cause. The application for condonation is filed with the OA, supported by an affidavit.
Ramesh Chandra Sharma v. Udham Singh Kamal (1999) and D.C.S. Negi v. Union of India (2011)
The Supreme Court held that the tribunal must first decide the delay and cannot go into merits of a time-barred OA without condoning it, and criticised entertaining late applications without a proper condonation request.
Supreme Court orders on Covid-19 limitation (2020 to 2022)
The period from 15 March 2020 to 28 February 2022 was excluded for computing limitation, with at least 90 days allowed from 1 March 2022. This matters only for older orders, but it still turns up in cases about orders passed in that period.
Writing the condonation application
Fix the two key dates
Work out when limitation actually ended and the date you will file. The gap between them is the delay. Our page on filing late under Section 21 explains how to count it, and getting this wrong is the first thing departments point out.
Break the gap into periods
Divide the delay into periods with start and end dates and a reason for each. Write it as a short table or numbered paragraphs.
Match each period to a document
Medical papers, the other forum's order, the postal record, letters to and from the earlier lawyer, posting orders. Number them as annexures in the same order as the periods.
State the delay in days at the top
Say plainly that the OA is late by a stated number of days and that the application seeks condonation under Section 21(3). Hiding the length or calling it 'some delay' annoys benches.
Add a short paragraph on the merits
Pathapati Subba Reddy says merits should not decide condonation, but benches still like to see that the case is not frivolous. Two or three lines are enough.
Swear the affidavit carefully
The affidavit supporting the application must be true in every detail. If the department shows one statement to be false, the whole application suffers.
File the application with the OA, not later. If the registry raises a limitation objection, it is answered by pointing to this application.
Advocate B.K. Singh's two tips on delay applications
Advocate B.K. Singh builds the explanation from the documents, not the other way round. He first asks the client to bring every paper from the relevant period, puts them in date order, and only then writes the periods. Where a period has no paper, he tells the client so at the outset, because that is where the department's reply will aim.
His second tip is about tone. Applications that blame everyone, the department, the union, the earlier lawyer and the post office, read as excuses. He prefers one or two main reasons, fully proved, and a candid sentence about any short gap. Where the bench is inclined to condone on terms such as a modest cost, he usually advises accepting it rather than arguing, since the real fight is on the merits.
A made-up example: a removed MTS who went to the wrong court first
Here's a made-up example. Bijay was a Multi Tasking Staff in a central government office in Bhubaneswar. He was removed from service after an inquiry, and his appeal was rejected by an order dated 10 January 2025. Limitation ran till 10 January 2026.
In June 2025 a local advocate filed a writ in the Orissa High Court. In December 2025 the High Court allowed the petition to be withdrawn with liberty to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal. Bijay then had to collect his papers, which the earlier advocate returned only in late January 2026. He filed his OA at the Cuttack Bench on 20 February 2026.
His condonation application said the OA was 41 days late on a plain count. It explained that about six months of the year had been spent in the High Court in good faith, from the filing of the writ in June 2025 to the withdrawal order in December 2025, and that the weeks after that order went in getting his file back and signing a fresh vakalatnama. It attached the writ petition, the High Court order and a letter from the earlier advocate confirming when the file was returned.
The department objected that a CAT matter was obviously not for the High Court. The bench found the time in the High Court was spent bona fide, noted the short delay, and condoned it, issuing notice on the OA. Had the delay been three years and the High Court petition filed after limitation ended, the result might well have been different.
Why the kind of claim changes how much delay is forgiven
The same delay can be treated differently depending on what you are asking for. In seniority and promotion cases, others have usually been promoted and settled in their posts on the strength of the order you challenge. Undoing it years later harms people who did nothing wrong, and they must be made parties. Benches are therefore strict, and a delay of a few years with an ordinary explanation is usually fatal.
Penalty orders, especially dismissal and removal, are viewed with more sympathy because the employee's livelihood is at stake, and the penalty does not directly upset anyone else's position. Even so, a removed employee who waited five years without a reason will struggle. The tribunal also asks whether the department can still produce the inquiry record and witnesses after so long.
Pay fixation, increments and pension are often recurring claims. Here the question shifts from whether the OA can be heard at all to how far back the arrears should go. The delay explanation still matters, because it can affect interest and the arrears period, but the claim itself is less likely to be thrown out entirely.
Recovery orders and fresh show cause notices are normally challenged within time because they are recent. If you are dealing with one of those, delay is unlikely to be your problem; acting before the recovery starts is.
Group C, retirees, candidates and families
Benches tend to be more patient with Group C and D employees, Gramin Dak Sevaks and families of deceased employees, especially in pension and compassionate appointment matters. That is not a rule, and a long delay without explanation will still fail, but personal circumstances are read with more sympathy.
Group A and B officers, on the other hand, are expected to know their remedies. An officer who says he did not know of the time limit will rarely be believed.
Candidates in recruitment disputes face a harder test, because selections are completed, appointments made and the next exam held. A delay of even a few months can be fatal when the posts have been filled. If you are a candidate, treat the time limit as much shorter than one year in practice.
Retirees with pension claims often benefit from the continuing wrong principle, and recent Supreme Court decisions in 2026 have questioned limiting pension arrears to three years. Check the current position before deciding how much to claim.
How a delay application moves, and the costs
| Step | Typical time | General cost |
|---|---|---|
| Collecting documents for each period | One to three weeks | Copying, RTI fee of Rs 10 where needed |
| Drafting the OA and condonation application with affidavit | One to two weeks | Advocate's fee discussed at the first meeting and agreed in writing |
| Filing with the OA | One day; registry may raise a limitation objection | OA fee of Rs 50 under Rule 7 (check the current figure); notary charges for the affidavit |
| Department's reply to the delay application | Three to eight weeks after notice | None to you |
| Hearing on delay | Often at the first or second listing, sometimes with the OA | Agreed advocate's fee for that stage |
| Order condoning, refusing, or condoning on terms | Same day as the hearing or reserved | The bench may impose costs as a condition |
Papers to gather before the application is drafted
- The final order or appellate order, with the envelope or covering letter showing when it reached you
- Your statutory appeal or representation and proof of the date it was sent
- Medical records for every period of illness: admission, discharge, prescriptions, bills
- Orders of any other court or forum, with the petition you filed there
- Letters, messages and receipts showing contact with an earlier lawyer
- Posting orders if you were at a remote station, at sea or abroad
- Any written promise by the department to reconsider or extend a judgment to you
- A one-page list of dates you have written yourself
If the delay is refused
An order refusing condonation ends the OA without a decision on the merits. You can seek review under Section 22(3)(f) within 30 days if the order has an error apparent on the record, such as overlooking a document that was on file. Otherwise the remedy is a writ before the Division Bench of the High Court with jurisdiction over that bench.
High Courts generally respect the tribunal's discretion on delay and interfere only if it was exercised on a wrong principle, for example by deciding the merits instead of the delay, or ignoring proven illness. If you go further, an SLP has its own time limits and condonation rules, covered in our guide on SLP time limits and certified copies.
Before any of that, ask whether a fresh cause of action exists. A new order passed on a fresh representation the rules provide for, or a continuing wrong, may allow a new OA within time. This is not a way round a refusal, but sometimes the facts genuinely support it.
What to do this week
Find your final order and the date it reached you. Count one year from that date, or from the end of six months after your statutory appeal if no reply came. If you are past it, start the list of periods and collect one document for each. If you are close to the end of the year, file first and refine later; a timely OA needs no condonation.
Our guide on checking limitation for old claims sets out how an old file is tested before filing, and the Section 21 late filing page explains how the application is presented. If you have not yet sent the statutory representation your rules require, read the page on representations under Section 20 first.
For advice on whether your delay can be explained, or for updates on how benches are treating late applications, contact Advocate B.K. Singh.
Frequently asked questions
How many days of delay can CAT condone?
There is no fixed upper limit in Section 21(3). The longer the delay, the stronger and better documented the reasons must be. Delays of years are condoned only in clear cases, usually pension or continuing wrongs.
Do I need a separate application for condonation?
Yes, a separate miscellaneous application under Section 21(3) supported by an affidavit is filed with the OA. Without it, the registry may refuse to register a late OA. The tribunal decides it before the merits.
Is a medical certificate enough to explain delay?
A single certificate covering many months is often doubted. Hospital records, prescriptions and bills spread over the period are far more convincing. The dates must match the period you are explaining.
Can I count the time my case was pending in the High Court?
Generally yes, if you pursued it in good faith and the High Court returned or dismissed it on jurisdiction. Attach the petition and the order. File in CAT promptly after that order.
My department kept replying to my letters. Does that stop limitation?
Usually not. Only the statutory appeal or representation provided by the rules extends time. Replies to repeated representations do not restart the year, though a fresh decision on merits can sometimes create a new cause of action.
Will the department oppose my delay application?
Most departments file a reply opposing condonation, often saying the claim is stale and affects others. That is routine. The bench decides on your documents and the length of delay.
Can the tribunal condone delay but impose costs?
Yes, benches sometimes condone delay on condition that the applicant pays a modest cost. It is usually wise to accept and move to the merits.
What if I was a candidate and the recruitment is over?
Delay is treated strictly in recruitment because posts are filled and lists close. Even a few months can be fatal. File as soon as you can and explain every period.
Advocate B.K. Singh
Founder of B.K. Singh & Associates. MCA, LL.B., LL.M. More than twenty years in practice before the Supreme Court, the Delhi High Court and other High Courts, the Central Administrative Tribunal and other tribunals. This guide was written and reviewed by his team.
This guide explains the law in general terms and is not legal advice. For advice on your own papers, contact the team.
Related guides
ProcedureOA Paper Book: Index, Synopsis, List of Dates and Annexures in Order
How to put together an OA paper book for the Central Administrative Tribunal: index, synopsis, list of dates, Form I and annexures from A-1 onwards.
ProcedureWriting a List of Dates for a Service Case: A Worked Example in Words
A list of dates for a service case built from a real-looking file: which events go in, how each entry is worded, and how the dates show limitation.
ProcedureFraming the Relief Clause in an OA: Asking for Exactly What You Need
How to draft the relief clause in an OA before CAT: quashing the right orders, listing consequential benefits, asking for interest and avoiding vague...
ProcedureWho to Make a Respondent: Union of India, Department Heads and Private Parties
Choosing respondents in an OA before CAT: Union of India through the Secretary, the officers who passed the order, and private parties who must be...
ProcedurePromotion or Seniority Case: Why Affected Juniors Must Be Made Parties
Why a promotion or seniority OA must name the juniors it would push down, how many to implead, and how representative capacity and late impleadment...
ProcedureVakalatnama, Verification and Affidavit in a Tribunal Filing
What a vakalatnama for tribunal cases must contain, how the verification clause and affidavits in an OA are signed, attested and filed, and what goes...