Dismissed

T. Muthuveerappan v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC6 Mar 2014WP(MD)/3967/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner, who retired 14 years prior to filing, sought to retrospectively claim pension benefits as an Additional Superintendent of Police under a Government Order from 2000. The Madras High Court dismissed the petition solely due to the excessive delay and laches in approaching the court.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

T. Muthuveerappan Vs the Secretary to… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 06.03.2014 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRA BAABU

¶4

Writ Petition (MD)No.3967 of 2014

¶5

T.Muthuveerappan ... Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

1.The Secretary to Government, Home Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai – 9.

¶8

2.The Director of Police (L& O), Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. ... Respondents

¶9

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to implement G.O.Ms.No.1192, dated 06.11.2000 with effect from 31.12.2000 and consequently, revise the petitioner's pensionary proposal by treating him as Additional Superintendent of Police and pay the arrears which payable to the petitioner.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Antony Arul Raj For Respondents : Mr.V.Muruganandham Additional Government Pleader

¶11

ORDER

¶12

The prayer in this Writ Petition is for a mandamus directing the respondents to implement G.O.Ms.No.1192, Home (Police.1A) Department, dated 06.11.2000, with effect from 31.12.2000 and consequently, revise the petitioner's pension proposal by treating him as Additional Superintendent of Police and pay the arrears.

¶13

Mr.V.Muruganandham, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents.

¶14

By consent of both the parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

¶15

The petitioner was working as Assistant Commissioner of Police and attained the age of superannuation on 31.12.2000 and consequently, retired from service on the said date. After 14 years, now, the petitioner seeks to get a benefit out of a Government Order made in G.O.Ms.No.1192, Home (Police.1A) Department, dated 06.11.2000. The petitioner after retiring from service, is receiving the pension for the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ past 14 years without any protest. All of a sudden, he wants to seek the benefit of the said Government Order of the year 2000. When admittedly,

¶16

¶17

the said Government Order was very much in force even at the time of his retirement, the petitioner has not taken any steps to seek the benefit either immediately after his retirement or at least within the reasonable time thereafter. Now, after 14 years, he seeks some benefit out of the said Government Order.

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioner in this case contended that the rights of the other parties are not affected due to the delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court. Thus, he contends that the delay cannot stand in the way of considering the petitioner's request. The very same contention was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ex.Capt.Harish Uppal Vs. Union of India and Others reported in 1994 Supp (2) SCC 195. In paragraph No.8, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, held as follows:-

¶19

“8. The petitioner sought to contend that because of laches on his part, no third party right have intervened and that by granting relief to the petitioner no other person's rights are going to be affected. He also cited certain decisions to that effect. This plea ignores the fact that the said consideration is only one of the considerations which the Court will take into account while determining whether a writ petition suffers from laches. It is not the only consideration. It is a wellsettled policy of law that the parties should pursue their rights and remedies promptly and not sleep over their rights. That is the whole policy behind the Limitation Act and other rules of limitation. If they choose to sleep over their rights and remedies for an inordinately long time, the court may well choose to decline to interfere in its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.- and that is what precisely the Delhi High Court has done. We cannot say that the High Court was not entitled to say so in its discretion.”

¶20

In my considered view, the writ petition cannot be entertained in view of the delay and laches on the part of the petitioner. It is well settled that a person, who comes before the Court has to approach at the earliest point of time to seek the relief. While considering the delay and laches in approaching this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd., and Another Vs. K.Thangappan and Another reported in 2006 (4) SCC 322, as follows:-

¶21

“5. The factual position as noted above clearly shows that for nearly two decades Respondent 1 workman had remained silent. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the appellants even in the representations made in 1997 and 1998 there was no reference to the representations claimed to have been made in 1982 and/or 1989. Even if that would have been made, there was considerable delay even in making the representations. There is no dispute that mere making of representations cannot justify a belated approach.

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. Delay or laches is one of the factors which is to be borne in mind by the High Court when they exercise

¶23

¶24

their discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. In an appropriate case the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite party. Even where fundamental right is involved the matter is still within the discretion of the Court as pointed out in Durga Prashad V. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports (1969) 1 SCC 185 . Of course, the discretion has to be exercised judicially and reasonably.”

¶25

Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Dugal Kumar reported in 2008 (14) SCC 295, held at paragraph 24, as follows:-

¶26

“24. As to delay and laches on the part of the writ petitioner, there is substance in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant Company. It is well settled that under Article 226 of the Constitution, the power of a High Court to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction is discretionary. One of the grounds to refuse relief by a writ court is that the petitioner is guilty of delay and laches. It is imperative, where the petitioner invokes extraordinary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, that he should come to the Court at the earliest reasonably possible opportunity. Inordinate delay in making the motion for a writ is indeed an adequate ground for refusing to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant.”

¶27

As the period of 14 years between the retirement of the petitioner and his present claim is undoubtedly an abnormal one, I find that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed solely on the ground of delay and laches. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶28

\True copy\

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶30

To:

¶31

1.The Secretary to Government, Home Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai – 9.

¶32