Telangana High Court
Y.Muthaiah, vs Telangana State Road Transport ... on 23 September, 2025
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN
WRIT APPEAL No.1055 OF 2025
JUDGMENT:
Heard Sri G.Satish Babu, learned counsel for the
appellant and perused the record.
2. This appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is
directed against the order dated 28.05.2025 passed by the
learned Single Judge in W.P.No.14604 of 2018 wherein the
learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the
ground of inordinate delay and laches.
Brief facts of the case
3. It is the case of the appellant that he was employed as a
Shramik with the respondent-Corporation. Following a
disciplinary proceeding initiated on charges of unauthorized
absence, he was removed from the service by an order dated
14.09.2007. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred a
statutory appeal. Accordingly, the Appellate Authority i.e., the
Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer, vide order dated
31.12.2007, exhibited compassionate and humanitarian
approach and has set aside the order of removal. The Appellate
Authority, however, substituted the order of removal from
service with a specific and conditional relief. The appellant was
directed to be "re-appointed afresh as Shramik" with the explicit
stipulation that he would not be entitled to any previous service
or attendant benefits. Since the appointment of the appellant
was afresh, the intervening period from the date of removal to
the date of re-appointment was treated as "not on duty". The
appellant accepted the conditional re-appointment and he
rejoined duty on 07.02.2008 and continued to serve under the
terms of the 2007 order until his superannuation on
30.04.2018. The appellant chose to file a "mercy petition" in
the year 2015 with a delay of nine years, thereby seeking to
nullify the denial of past service, which was rejected on
09.12.2016.
4. Accordingly, the appellant filed the underlying writ
petition assailing the order of rejection of his 'mercy petition'.
The learned Single Judge dismissed the said writ petition on the
ground of delay and laches observing that the appellant/writ
petitioner filed the mercy petition before respondent No.2 after
nine years without explaining the silence for a period of about
nine years and without giving any cogent reasons for the delay.
Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the present
appeal has been preferred.
Contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant:
5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the
cause of action for filing the writ petition arose from the date of
rejection of the mercy petition i.e., on 09.12.2016, on account of
which the underlying writ petition filed in 2018. The writ
petition is filed within a reasonable time considering the time
line from the date of accrual of cause of action, namely, the
rejection order of the 'mercy petition' dated 09.12.2016.
Learned counsel also contends that the precedent relied upon
by the learned Single Judge (W.A.Nos.1660 of 2018 & 593 of
2016) is in respect of a direct challenge to a punitive order,
whereas the present challenge is to a subsequent, independent
order of rejection.
6. We have taken note of the contentions urged.
Consideration of this Court
7. As per the doctrine of delay and laches, law aids the
vigilant, not those who sleep over their rights. In the instant
case, the appellant had accepted the appellate order dated
31.12.2007 and after the fresh appointment, the appellant
worked as a re-appointed Shramik for nearly a decade and has
been superannuated in the year 2018. The filing of mercy
petition abruptly in 2015 caused the very essence of laches.
However, in respect to the original cause of action that arose in
2007, the very mercy petition is belated and time-barred and is
hit by the doctrine of delay and laches.
8. Though the appellant contended that rejection of a
representation gives rise to a fresh cause of action, it is to be
noted that the above principle is applicable only to
representations made within a reasonable time to address a
grievance that is current or continuing and such a
representation cannot be used to revive a grievance that has
become stale due to the appellant having accepted the same and
passage of a substantial time period. Further, a rejection of
belated representation preferred purporting to espouse a stale
cause does not confer any right. The rejection order dated
09.12.2016 merely reaffirmed the previously concluded decision
of 2007.
9. This Court is of the considered view that the contention
raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the denial of
15 years of service, seniority and attendant pensionary benefits
constitutes a continuing wrong which has effect even upon
superannuation, is without merit. The law clearly distinguishes
between a continuing wrong and the continuing effects of a
past, completed wrong. The order of the appellate authority
passed in 2007 has attained finality. The attempt of the
appellant to create a fresh cause of action on the basis of a
representation/mercy petition cannot be countenanced.
10. It is settled law that an employee cannot be allowed to
dispute a condition of service after having voluntarily accepted
and availed the benefits of employment under that condition for
a pretty long duration. We are of the considered opinion that
the ratio as applied by the learned Single Judge while reiterating
the judgment of the Division Bench in W.A.Nos.1660 of 2018
and 593 of 2016 is correct and the factual distinction attempted
to be brought out by the appellant is non-existent.
11. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the
considered view that the learned Single Judge has rightly
dismissed the underlying writ petition. Consequently, this
Court is of the view that impugned order does not suffer from
any infirmity or error. The Writ Appeal is devoid of any merit.
12. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. There shall be
no order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending,
shall stand closed.
__________________________________
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ
__________________________________
G.M. MOHIUDDIN, J
Date: 23.09.2025
ssp
