In P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. The State Of Tamil Nadu AIR
Case Details
Sarita Rani 2025.02.14 10:07 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CWP No.3624 of 2025 2025:PHHC: 019463 pe(cid:3)(cid:3)oner was en(cid:3)tled to promo(cid:3)on from June, 1984, but instead of direc(cid:3)ng the respondents to release the wages and other benefits, directed the pe(cid:3)(cid:3)oner to make a representa(cid:3)on before the respondents to be decided within specified period, vide order 10.04.2018 (Annexure P-2). Pe(cid:3)(cid:3)oner then made representa(cid:3)on dated 31.08.2018 before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, but the same was rejected vide order dated 07.09.2018 (Annexure P-5). 4. I have considered submissions of learned counsel for the pe(cid:3)(cid:3)oner and perused the paper-book. 5. It is apparent on perusal of the paper book and on hearing of
Legal Reasoning
learned counsel for the pe(cid:3)(cid:3)oner that the pe(cid:3)(cid:3)oner had re(cid:3)red on a/aining the age of superannua(cid:3)on on 31.05.2017. He has assailed the impugned order dated 07.09.2018 by way of filing this pe(cid:3)(cid:3)on in January, 2025, i.e. a2er a period of more than 06 years. Learned counsel for the pe(cid:3)(cid:3)oner has absolutely failed to convince this court about this inordinate delay in approaching the Court. 6. Thus, pe(cid:3)(cid:3)on is evidently hit by the principles of long delay and latches. No doubt that for filing of a writ pe(cid:3)(cid:3)on under Ar(cid:3)cle 226 of the Indian Cons(cid:3)tu(cid:3)on, there is no strict statute of limita(cid:3)on, but this does not mean that delays are en(cid:3)rely overlooked. The courts apply the principles of delay and laches to determine the reasonableness of the delay in filing such a pe(cid:3)(cid:3)on. In this regard, courts have significant discre(cid:3)on to decide whether a delay is unreasonable. They consider factors such as the jus(cid:3)fica(cid:3)on for the delay, poten(cid:3)al prejudice to the opposing party, and the public interest involved. Delays are more likely to be overlooked if the issue pertains to public interest or affects a large number of people. If the delay is deemed unreasonable and causes prejudice to the other party, or if the pe(cid:3)(cid:3)oner has acquiesced to the situa(cid:3)on, the court may dismiss the pe(cid:3)(cid:3)on. 7. In P.S. Sadasivaswamy vs The State Of Tamil Nadu AIR 1974 SC 2271, Hon’ble Supreme Court, observed as under: Sarita Rani 2025.02.14 10:07 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order Page 2 of 5 CWP No.3624 of 2025 2025:PHHC: 019463 “A person aggrieved by an order of promo(cid:3)ng a junior over his head should approach the Court at least within six months or at the most a year of such promo(cid:3)on. It is not that 'here is any period of limita(cid:3)on for the Courts to exercise their powers under Ar(cid:3)cle 226 nor is it that there can never be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in a ma/er a2er the passage of a certain length of (cid:3)me. But it would be a sound and wise exercise of discre(cid:3)on for the Courts to refuse to exercise their extra-ordinary powers under Ar(cid:3)cle 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expedi(cid:3)ously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the Court to put forward stale claims and try to unse/le se/led ma/ers. The pe(cid:3)(cid:3)oner's pe(cid:3)(cid:3)on should, therefore have been dismissed in limine. Entertaining such pe(cid:3)(cid:3)ons is a waste of (cid:3)me of the court. It clogs the work of the Court and impedes the work of the court in considering legi(cid:3)mate grievances as also its normal work. We consider that the High court was right in dismissing the appellant's pe(cid:3)(cid:3)on as well as the appeal.” 8. Hon'ble Supreme Court has recently held in Mrinmoy Maity Vs Chhanda Koley and others, 2024 SCC Online SC 551, as under:- “9. Having heard rival conten(cid:3)ons raised and on perusal of the facts obtained in the present case, we are of the considered view that writ pe(cid:3)(cid:3)oner ought to have been non-suited or in other words writ pe(cid:3)(cid:3)on ought to have been dismissed on the ground of delay and latches itself. An applicant who approaches the court belatedly or in other words sleeps over his rights for a considerable period of (cid:3)me, wakes up from his deep slumber ought not to be granted the extraordinary relief by the writ courts. This Court (cid:3)me and again has held that delay defeats equity. Delay or latches is one of the factors which should be borne in mind by the High Court while exercising discre(cid:3)onary powers under Ar(cid:3)cle 226 of the Cons(cid:3)tu(cid:3)on of India. In a given case, the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if laxity on the part of the applicant to assert his right has allowed the cause of ac(cid:3)on to dri2 away and a/empts are made subsequently to rekindle the lapsed cause of ac(cid:3)on. Sarita Rani 2025.02.14 10:07 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order Page 3 of 5 CWP No.3624 of 2025 2025:PHHC: 019463 10. The discre(cid:3)on to be exercised would be with care and cau(cid:3)on. If the delay which has occasioned in approaching the writ court is explained which would appeal to the conscience of the court, in such circumstances it cannot be gainsaid by the contes(cid:3)ng party that for all (cid:3)mes to come the delay is not to be condoned. There may be myriad circumstances which gives rise to the invoking of the extraordinary jurisdic(cid:3)on and it all depends on facts and circumstances of each case, same cannot be described in a straight jacket formula with mathema(cid:3)cal precision. The ul(cid:3)mate discre(cid:3)on to be exercised by the writ court depends upon the facts that it has to travel or the terrain in which the facts have traveled. 11. For filing of a writ pe(cid:3)(cid:3)on, there is no doubt that no fixed period of limita(cid:3)on is prescribed. However, when the extraordinary jurisdic(cid:3)on of the writ court is invoked, it has to be seen as to whether within a reasonable (cid:3)me same has been invoked and even submiCng of memorials would not revive the dead cause of ac(cid:3)on or resurrect the cause of ac(cid:3)on which has had a natural death. In such circumstances on the ground of delay and latches alone, the appeal ought to be dismissed or the applicant ought to be non-suited. If it is found that the writ pe(cid:3)(cid:3)oner is guilty of delay and latches, the High Court ought to dismiss the pe(cid:3)(cid:3)on on that sole ground itself, in as much as the writ courts are not to indulge in permiCng such indolent li(cid:3)gant to take advantage of his own wrong. It is true that there cannot be any waiver of fundamental right but while exercising discre(cid:3)onary jurisdic(cid:3)on under Ar(cid:3)cle 226, the High Court will have to necessarily take into considera(cid:3)on the delay and latches on the part of the applicant in approaching a writ court. 9. It is thus clear that High Court should not entertain the writ pe(cid:3)(cid:3)on and should dismiss the same on the ground of delay and latches, when there is no explana(cid:3)on of delay. The applicant who approaches the Court belatedly or sleeps over his rights for considerable period, does not deserve to be granted the extra-ordinary relief by invoking the writ jurisdic(cid:3)on of the Court. It is se/led proposi(cid:3)on of law that delay defeats equity. High Court will be well within its jurisdic(cid:3)on to refuse to invoke its writ powers, if there is laxity on behalf of the applicant, as the said laxity Sarita Rani 2025.02.14 10:07 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order Page 4 of 5 CWP No.3624 of 2025 2025:PHHC: 019463 allows the cause of ac(cid:3)on to dri2 away and a/empts to rekindle the lapsed cause of ac(cid:3)on. Even the delayed mul(cid:3)ple communica(cid:3)ons cannot create a cause of ac(cid:3)on. 10. In the present case also, there is absolutely no explana(cid:3)on for delay of more than 06 years in approaching the court. The conten(cid:3)on that the pe(cid:3)(cid:3)oner can approach the court at any point of (cid:3)me because of recurring cause, has no merit, as at this belated stage, pe(cid:3)(cid:3)oner cannot be allowed to put forth his grievances. 11. As such, the present pe(cid:3)(cid:3)on is hereby dismissed being badly hit by the doctrine of delay and latches, as this Court does not find it appropriate to invoke its extra-ordinary writ jurisdic(cid:3)on. February 10, 2025 Sarita (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether reportable? Yes/No Yes/No Sarita Rani 2025.02.14 10:07 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order Page 5 of 5