Fresh Representation After Delay And Laches Does Not Revive A Stale Claim: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench has emphasized that a fresh representation by an employee, after a lapse of time, does not revive a stale claim. The Petitioner, who was a bank employee, was subjected to disciplinary proceedings and received a punishment order in 2007.
The Court asserted that the Petitioner did not object to the punishment order and filed a belated appeal in 2008, which was rejected. The Petitioner then attempted to seek a review, but it was not maintainable. The Court held that simply because the review order was issued in 2023, it does not mean that the challenge against the punishment order can be revived.
Justice Abdul Moin observed, “From careful perusal of judgements of Hon'ble Apex Court as referred to above, it clearly emerges that merely because representations have been submitted by an employee which came to be decided, the decision would not entail revival of stale claim. Even otherwise, in the instant case, the petitioner, as per his own accord, has filed a review which was not itself maintainable as per the service rules in the year 2008 and it is only when the authorities informed him in the year 2023 that the review is not maintainable as per service rules that the petitioner has challenged all the orders including the punishment order of the year 2007 and the appellate order of the year 2008. Thus merely because the authorities informed about the non maintainability of the review through an order dated 18.04.2023 the same would not entail revival of a stale claim as in the instant writ petition”.
Advocate Vaibhav Srivastava appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate Gaurav Mehrotra appeared for Respondents no. 2-6.
The Petitioner, an employee of Respondent no. 2/ Bank, received an adverse entry and stoppage of one increment as punishment without raising any objection. A belated appeal was rejected and a review was held as non-maintainable, leading him to file a Writ Petition challenging the punishment, appellate, and review orders passed by Respondents no. 3, 4, and 5.
The Court while placing reliance on Supreme Court Judgements in the cases Union of India and another vs Tarsem Singh [2008 (8) SCC 648] and the State of Tripura and others vs Arabinda Chakraborty and others [(2014) 6 SCC 460], reiterated that a service claim can be rejected due to delay and laches unless it is based on a ‘continuing wrong’ that creates a ‘continuing source of injury’. The exception to the principle of 'continuing wrong' would not be applicable to the case as the Petitioner's pay was not fixed wrongly but rather was a result of disciplinary actions by the authorities.
In this context, the Court reiterated, “A perusal of judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tarsem Singh (supra) would indicate that Hon'ble Apex Court has held that a belated service claim can be rejected on the ground of delay and laches where remedy is sought by filing of writ petition or limitation where a remedy is sought by application to the administrative tribunal but one of the exception to the said rule would be relating to a continuing wrong where the service related claim is based on a continuing wrong. Relief can be granted even if there is long delay in seeking remedy with reference to the date on which continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has carved out certain exceptions to the principle of 'continuing wrong' of which one of the exception which has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner is that if the issue relates to payment or re-fixation of pay and pension then the relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the right of third parties”.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Petition on the ground of laches.
Cause Title: Mahendra Pal v State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Cooperative Lko. And 5 Others (2023:AHC-LKO:49918)
