High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries High Court of Himachal Pradesh Dismisses Bail Plea in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam: Rajdeep Singh Case Execution of Conveyance Ends Arbitration Clause; Appeal for Arbitration Rejected: Bombay High Court Allahabad High Court Denies Tax Refund for Hybrid Vehicle Purchased Before Electric Vehicle Exemption Policy Entering A Room with Someone Cannot, By Any Stretch Of Imagination, Be Considered Consent For Sexual Intercourse: Bombay High Court No Specific Format Needed for Dying Declaration, Focus on Mental State and Voluntariness: Calcutta High Court Delhi High Court Allows Direct Appeal Under DVAT Act Without Tribunal Reference for Pre-2005 Tax Periods NDPS | Mere Registration of Cases Does Not Override Presumption of Innocence: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Previous Antecedents and No Communal Tension: High Court Grants Bail in Caste-Based Abuse Case Detention of Petitioner Would Amount to Pre-Trial Punishment: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail in Dowry Harassment Case Loss of Confidence Must Be Objectively Proven to Deny Reinstatement: Kerala High Court Reinstates Workman After Flawed Domestic Enquiry Procedural lapses should not deny justice: Andhra High Court Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Case Canteen Subsidy Constitutes Part of Dearness Allowance Under EPF Act: Gujarat High Court Concurrent Findings Demonstrate Credibility – Jharkhand High Court Affirms Conviction in Cheating Case 125 Cr.P.C | Financial responsibility towards dependents cannot be shirked due to personal obligations: Punjab and Haryana High Court Mere Acceptance of Money Without Proof of Demand is Not Sufficient to Establish Corruption Charges Gujrat High Court Evidence Insufficient to Support Claims: Orissa High Court Affirms Appellate Court’s Reversal in Wrongful Confinement and Defamation Case Harmonious Interpretation of PWDV Act and Senior Citizens Act is Crucial: Kerala High Court in Domestic Violence Case

Attempts to Revive a Lapsed Cause of Action are Impermissible – Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Plea for Compassionate Allowance After 21 Years

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Punjab and Haryana High Court today ruled against a petitioner seeking compassionate allowance and other benefits following his dismissal from service in 2001, highlighting the impermissibility of reviving a lapsed cause of action.

Brief on the Legal Point:

The court’s decision centered on the principles of delay and laches, determining that the petitioner’s unexplained delay of 21 years in seeking redress detrimentally affected his entitlement to relief. The court emphasized that in cases where a dismissal order is valid, entitlement to retiral benefits, including compassionate allowances, does not arise unless an exceptional case is presented.

Facts and Issues Arising:

Dayaram, the petitioner, was dismissed from service by the D.I.G., C.R.P.F., Khatkhati, Assam, on April 16, 2001. After remaining inactive for over two decades, Dayaram issued a legal notice on March 17, 2022, demanding the recall of his dismissal and the release of pensionary and other benefits. The respondents, however, rejected his claims, leading him to approach the High Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

Detailed Court Assessment:

Jurisdictional Limits:

The dismissal occurred outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, limiting its authority to intervene.

Delay and Laches:

The court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley and others, asserting that significant delays without a plausible explanation can preclude the exercise of writ jurisdiction. The court noted, “Delay defeats equity,” underscoring that indolent litigants should not be allowed to benefit from their own inaction.

Lack of Substantive Grounds:

The petitioner failed to challenge the original dismissal order directly and instead sought a review based on subsequent communications, which the court found legally insufficient to revive the originally lapsed cause of action.

Decision:

The petition was dismissed on grounds of substantial delay, lack of jurisdiction, and failure to challenge the original dismissal order directly. The court found no compelling case made out for the entitlement to compassionate allowance under the circumstances described.

Date of Decision: May 1, 2024.

Dayaram v. Union of India and Others

Similar News