HC: Where a service-related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy [Read Judgment]

The Delhi High court recently comprising of a bench of Justices Rajiv Sahai Endlaw and Amit Bansal in a matter pertaining to administrative law, held that a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and or limitation. It was seen in the matter that one of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. (Civil Audit Association v Comptroller and Auditor General of India)

Facts of the Case

The petition herein arises from the order dated 5th January, 2021, of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), New Delhi, of dismissal for condonation of 773 days delay in filing of the application. CAT, conscious of the aforesaid position in law, in the impugned order, has refused to condone the delay on the ground that though the individual officers were entitled to apply but not the Association.

Since CAT, in the impugned order has recorded that the order dated 13th June, 2011 impugned before it was of pay fixation and gave rise to a recurring cause of action, the court enquired from the counsel for the petitioners, the need for filing the application for condonation of delay.

Contentions of the Parties

The counsel for the petitioner stated that as per the practice prevalent in CAT, the Registry of CAT does not even entertain the O.A. if in its opinion, is belated, unless accompanied with an application for condonation of delay. CAT, conscious of the aforesaid position in law, in the impugned order, has refused to condone the delay on the ground that though the individual officers were entitled to apply but not the Association. However, besides the Association, two individuals also joined as applicants to the O.A. and CAT, while giving the said reasoning, has ignored the said fact.

Courts Observations & Judgment

The Court relied upon Supreme Court’s decision in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. C. Lalitha (2006) 2 SCC 747 and State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava (2015) 1 SCC 347 wherein it was held that service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all persons similarly situated should be treated similarly and only because one person has approached the Court that would not mean that persons similarly situated should be treated differently. Justice demands that a person should not be allowed to derive any undue advantage over other employees; 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; not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

It was also observed that the for aforementioned principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated equally; this principle is subject to well recognized exceptions in the form of delays/laches/acquiescence; persons who did not challenge wrongful action in their case and woke up after long delay, such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them and delays/laches/acquiescence would be a valid ground to dismiss their claims.

The court was of the view, “CAT should consider all the said aspects and proceed to decide the O.A. on merits. It will be open to CAT, while so deciding and if allowing the O.A., to restrict the benefit granted of increments in pay/emoluments to such date as may be deemed appropriate.”

Accordingly, the impugned order was set aside and the O.A. 29/2021 was restored before CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi, for decision on merits.

HC: Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy [Read Judgment]

The Delhi high court recently comprising of a bench of Justices Rajiv Sahai Endlaw and Amit Bansal in a matter pertaining to administrative law, held that that a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and or limitation. It was seen in the matter that one of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. (Civil Audit Association v Comptroller and Auditor General of India)

Facts of the Case

The petition herein arises from the order dated 5th January, 2021, of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), New Delhi, of dismissal for condonation of 773 days delay in filing of the application. CAT, conscious of the aforesaid position in law, in the impugned order, has refused to condone the delay on the ground that though the individual officers were entitled to apply but not the Association.

Since CAT, in the impugned order has recorded that the order dated 13th June, 2011 impugned before it was of pay fixation and gave rise to a recurring cause of action, the court enquired from the counsel for the petitioners, the need for filing the application for condonation of delay.

Contentions of the Parties

The counsel for the petitioner stated that as per the practice prevalent in CAT, the Registry of CAT does not even entertain the O.A. if in its opinion, is belated, unless accompanied with an application for condonation of delay. CAT, conscious of the aforesaid position in law, in the impugned order, has refused to condone the delay on the ground that though the individual officers were entitled to apply but not the Association. However, besides the Association, two individuals also joined as applicants to the O.A. and CAT, while giving the said reasoning, has ignored the said fact.

Courts Observations & Judgment

The Court relied upon Supreme Court’s decision in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. C. Lalitha (2006) 2 SCC 747 and State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava (2015) 1 SCC 347 wherein it was held that service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all persons similarly situated should be treated similarly and only because one person has approached the Court that would not mean that persons similarly situated should be treated differently. Justice demands that a person should not be allowed to derive any undue advantage over other employees; 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; not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

It was also observed that the for aforementioned principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated equally; this principle is subject to well recognized exceptions in the form of delays/laches/acquiescence; persons who did not challenge wrongful action in their case and woke up after long delay, such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them and delays/laches/acquiescence would be a valid ground to dismiss their claims.

The court was of the view, “CAT should consider all the said aspects and proceed to decide the O.A. on merits. It will be open to CAT, while so deciding and if allowing the O.A., to restrict the benefit granted of increments in pay/emoluments to such date as may be deemed appropriate.”

Accordingly, the impugned order was set aside and the O.A. 29/2021 was restored before CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi, for decision on merits.

Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com

Picture Source :