Madras High Court
Mr.S.Neelakandan vs The Deputy Secretary To ... on 1 December, 2022
W.P.No.24243 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.12.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.24243 of 2019
and
W.M.P.No.24010 of 2019
Mr.S.Neelakandan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Deputy Secretary to Government,
Transport (RW1) Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Deputy Manager (OnaThaB)
Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Ltd.,
(Old Pallavan Transport Corporation Ltd.,)
Pallavan Salai, Chennai – 600 002. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the
file of the 2nd respondent with regard to the letter Ref.No.16046/ ONaThaB1
/ MTC / 2017 dated 07.03.2017 and the order passed by the 1st respondent
with regard to Letter No.2594/RW1/2017-2 dated 15.03.2017 and quash
the same and direct the 1st respondent to sanction and pay pension to the
petitioner w.e.f, from 01.01.1988 as per the G.O.Ms.No.42, Transport (RW)
Department dated 27.05.2002 as the petitioner had put in 15 years 10
months and 10 days of service between 21.05.1966 to 01.04.1982 by
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24243 of 2019
following the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules with 18%
percentage interest.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.S.Jagadeesan
For R1 : Mr.R.P.Murugan Raja
Government Advocate
For R2 : Mr.A.Vinoth Raj
ORDER
The order of rejection, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for
sanction of pension with effect from 01.01.1988 as per the G.O.Ms.No.42,
Transport (RW) Department dated 27.05.2002 is under challenge in the
present writ petition.
2. The writ petitioner at the time of filing of the writ petition was aged
about 78 years and now he would be around 82 years. The petitioner had
admittedly exercised his option on 03.12.1974 and as per the option
exercised by the writ petitioner in the year 1974, all his benefits were settled
at the time of retirement on 30.06.1996.The writ petition has been filed in
the year 2019 after a lapse of about 23 years from the date of retirement.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24243 of 2019
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner status that the petitioner
earlier filed a writ petition in the year 2016, then also it was filed after 20
years from the date of retirement of the writ petitioner and more so, after
receiving all the terminal and pensionary benefits at the time of retirement. If
such belated and lapsed claims are entertained by this Court, it will result in
opening of Pandora Box. Many such similarly placed persons will approach
the Court of Law for pensionary benefits with retrospective effect, which will
cause huge financial burden to the public sector undertakings.
4. Court cannot encourage such belated claims, which would cause
financial loss to the public sector undertakings and the Government
departments. Therefore, the belated claims cannot be entertained and in the
present case, the petitioner had exercised his option in the year 1974 and as
per the options exercised benefits were settled.
5. Regarding delay and latches the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
has settled the principles as follows:
(a) In the case of Chairman / Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh
Power Corporation Limited and Others Vs. Ramgopal reported in [(2020)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24243 of 2019
SCC Online SC 101], the Three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India held as follows:
“Whilst it is true that limitation does not
strictly apply to proceedings under Articles 32 or
226 of the Constitution of India, nevertheless,
such rights cannot be enforced after an
unreasonable lapse of time. Consideration of
unexplained delays and inordinate laches would
always be relevant in writ actions, and writ courts
naturally ought to be reluctant in exercising their
discretionary jurisdiction to protect those who
have slept over wrongs and allowed illegalities to
fester. Fence-sitters cannot be allowed to barge
into courts and cry for their rights at their
convenience, and vigilant citizens ought not to be
treated alike with mere opportunists. On multiple
occasions, it has been restated that there are
implicit limitations of time within which writ
remedies can be enforced.”
(b) In the case of P.S. Sadasivaswamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu,
reported in [(1975) 1 SCC 152], held as follows:
“2. … One cannot sleep over the matter
and come to the Court questioning that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24243 of 2019
relaxation. In effect he wants to unscramble a
scrambled egg. It is not that there is any period
of limitation for the Courts to exercise their
powers under Article 226 nor is it that there can
never be a case where the Courts cannot
interfere in a matter after the passage of a
certain length of time. But it would be a sound
and wise exercise of discretion for the Courts to
refuse to exercise their extraordinary powers
under Article 226 in the case of persons who do
not approach it expeditiously for relief and who
stand by and allow things to happen and then
approach the Court to put forward stale claims
and try to unsettle settled matters……”
(c) In the case of SS Balu Vs. State of Kerala, reported in [(2009) 2
SCC 479], the Court observed thus:
“17. It is also well-settled principle of law that
“delay defeats equity”. …It is now a trite law
that where the writ petitioner approaches the
High Court after a long delay, reliefs prayed for
may be denied to them on the ground of delay
and laches irrespective of the fact that they are
similarly situated to the other candidates who
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24243 of 2019
obtain the benefit of the judgment.”
(d) In the case of Vijay Kumar Kaul Vs. Union of India, reported in
[(2012) 7 SCC 610], held as follows:
“27. …It becomes an obligation to take into
consideration the balance of justice or injustice
in entertaining the petition or declining it on the
ground of delay and laches. It is a matter of
great significance that at one point of time equity
that existed in favour of one melts into total
insignificance and paves the path of extinction
with the passage of time.”
It is also pertinent to mention that neither has it
been pleaded nor is it apparent from the material
on record that the Respondent was unable to
approach the court-of-law in time on account of
any social or financial disability. Had such been
the case, he ought to have availed free legal aid
and should have ventilated his grievances in a
timely manner.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24243 of 2019
6. (a) In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Others Vs. Arvind
Kumar Srivastava and Others reported in [(2015) 1 SCC 347], the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India held as follows:
“(2) However, this principle is subject to well
recognized exceptions in the form of laches and
delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons
who did not challenge the wrongful action in
their cases and acquiesced into the same and
woke up after long delay only because of the
reason that their counterparts who had
approached the Court earlier in time succeeded
in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim
that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the
case of similarly situated persons be extended to
them. They would be treated as fence-sitters and
laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence,
would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim.”
(b) In the case of RushibhaiJagdishbhai Pathak Vs. Bhavnagar
Municipal Corporation reported in [2022 SCC Online SC 641], held as
follows:
“The courts have expressed the view that
the law of limitation rests on the foundations of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24243 of 2019
greater public interest for three reasons
(a) that long dormant claims have more of cruelty
than justice in them
(b) that a Defendant might have lost the evidence
to disapprove a stale claim
(c) that persons with good causes of action
should pursue them with reasonable diligence
The normal Rule is that when a particular
set of employees is given relief by the court, all
other identically situated persons need to be
treated alike by extending that benefit. However,
this principle is subject to well-recognised
exceptions in the form of laches and delays as
well as acquiescence.
“Those persons who did not challenge the
wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced
into the same and woke up after long delay only
because of the reason that their counterparts who
had approached the court earlier in time
succeeded in their efforts, then such employees
cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment
rendered in the case of similarly situated persons
be extended to them. They would be treated as
fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the
acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24243 of 2019
their claim””
7. In view of the facts and circumstances, the petitioner has not
established any acceptable ground for the purpose of considering the relief
as such sought for in the present writ petition.
8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed both on the ground
of latches and on merits. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous
Petition is closed.
01.12.2022
Jeni
Index : Yes
Speaking order
To
1.The Deputy Secretary to Government,
Transport (RW1) Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Deputy Manager (OnaThaB)
Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Ltd.,
(Old Pallavan Transport Corporation Ltd.,)
Pallavan Salai, Chennai – 600 002.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24243 of 2019
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Jeni
W.P.No.24243 of 2019
01.12.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
