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