JUDGMENT By the Court—This writ petition has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 15.5.2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad by which the case of the respondent No. 1 for seniority and other notional benefits has been allowed. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner filed the claim petition for quashing the order dated 14.2.1990 and 22/26.2.1990 passed by the General Manager, D.L.W. Varanasi seeking direction to the respondent to assign him the seniority and to promote him as a Senior Clerk and Ward Keeper w.e.f. 3.10.1963 and 26.6.1967 respectively in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal No. 1643 of 1984 decided on 11.1.1989. The said applicant also sought fixation of his pay and payment of arrears of pay from the date of his revised position in each grade along with all the retirement benefits in the revised scales. 3. The basic question raised by the present petitioner, Union of India before the Tribunal was that the Original Application had been filed in 1994 i.e. after four years of the orders challenged by him and, therefore, the case was time barred. The learned Tribunal held that as the petitioner had been filing the representations repeatedly, the claim petition cannot be thrown out on the issue of limitation and as the applicant therein had been claiming the benefit of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered on 11.1.1989, the application cannot be treated to be time barred. 4. We have examined this issue first only on the issue of limitation and the question as to whether the Tribunal could have held the application not being time barred. A Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rabindra Nath Bose & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1970 SC 470 , has categorically held that once a representation is rejected by the authority concerned, making repeated representation cannot be explanation for delay. 5. In the instant case as the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court on the basis of which the application had been filed before the Tribunal, was delivered on 11.1.1989 and the representation claiming benefit under the said judgment has been rejected in February 1990, making any subsequent representation cannot furnish the explanation for delay on the part of the said applicant for a period of four years. 6. 6. A very heavy reliance has been placed by Shri Awasthi, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-employee on the Constitution Bench Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in K.C. Sharma & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 1998 SCC (L&S) 226, wherein Apex Court has held that where an employee claims the relief on the basis of the judgment of the Court, the Tribunal should condone the delay allowing the application for condonation of delay and in such an eventuality the Tribunal should not refuse to condone the delay in filing applications. 7. In the instant case, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court had been delivered prior to making the representation. More so admittedly, the said applicant-employee did not file any application for condonation of delay. It is settled legal proposition that the Court cannot grant the relief to the litigant, which he has not asked for meaning thereby, that in absence of an application for condonation of delay, it is not within the competence of a Court or Tribunal to condone the delay suo motu as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. Trojan and Co. v. RM. N.N. Nagappa Chettiar, AIR 1953 SC 235 ; and National Board of Examinations v. G. Anand Ramamurthy, (2006) 5 SCC 515 . 8. The case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Chand Sharma v. Udham Singh Kamal & Ors., (1999) 8 SCC 304 , wherein it has been held that in view of the provisions of Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, if an application for condonation is not filed under Section 21(3), there was no occasion for the Tribunal to entertain the application on merit as the same had to be dismissed being time barred. While deciding the said application a very heavy reliance has been placed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on its earlier judgment in Secretary to Govt. of India & Ors. v. Shivram Mahadu Gaikwad, 1995 Supp (3) SCC 231. As in the instant case, there was no application for condonation of delay before the Tribunal and the application has been filed after four years of passing the impugned orders rejecting the representation filed by the said employee, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has erred in entertaining his case on merit. 9. As in the instant case, there was no application for condonation of delay before the Tribunal and the application has been filed after four years of passing the impugned orders rejecting the representation filed by the said employee, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has erred in entertaining his case on merit. 9. In view of the above, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal dated 15.5.2000 is set aside and the Original Application No. 15 of 1994 filed by the said employee is dismissed being time barred. Petition Allowed. ———