Even Though Writ Petitions Have No Limitation Period, They Must Be Filed Within Reasonable Time: J&K High Court Dismisses Plea Filed After 26 Yrs

In dismissing a petition seeking promotional benefits twenty-six years after having been superseded Justice Sanjay Dhar observed,

“.. Even though there is no period of limitation provided for filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, yet the writ petition should ordinarily be filed within a reasonable time. In the instant case, twenty-six years after having been superseded, the petitioner's challenge to the said action of the respondents cannot be entertained by way of present writ petition”.

In the instant case the petitioner, a retired employee of the respondent Corporation, had a long-standing grievance regarding his promotions. Initially, he filed a writ petition in 1995, which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to address his grievance.

Following this, his representation was rejected in 2000. He then filed another writ petition challenging this action, but later withdrew it in 2007. Despite repeated representations over the years, his claim for promotions and seniority remained unresolved.

The petitioner through Sr Advocate Z. A Shah contended that he was wrongfully superseded multiple times between 1986 and 2010, arguing that he was entitled to promotions and consequential monetary benefits, which were unjustly denied.

He claimed that his representations kept his claim alive, and the respondent's issuance of an order in 2021, which granted him notional promotion, provided a fresh cause of action.

Respondents represented by Government Advocate Ms. Rekha Wangnoo argued that the petition was marred by delay and laches, asserting that the relief sought was available during the petitioner's service period and was not maintainable at this late stage. They also highlighted that mere filing of representations does not keep the claim alive and that the petitioner had waived his right to challenge the actions by previously abandoning the writ petition.

Adjudicating the matter Justice Dhar observed that mere filing of representations on stale matters or those barred by limitation cannot revive such claims, even if these representations are responded to by the authorities or the Court directs consideration of such representations. This principle was reinforced by referencing the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of C. Jacob vs. Director of Geology and Mining. 

The Court emphasized that claims for seniority and promotion must be made within a reasonable time. In the present case, the petitioner's challenge to his supersession, which occurred 26 years prior, was deemed too delayed to be entertained.

Pointing out that the petitioner had acquiesced in the actions of the respondents by not challenging his supersession and promotion decisions timely the court observed that this conduct amounted to a waiver of his right to contest these actions later.

“… It has been claimed by the petitioner that he withdrew the writ petition on the assurance of the respondents that his grievance will be settled, but the respondents have emphatically denied… In these circumstances, it has to be presumed that the petitioner abandoned his challenge to the action of the respondents without any condition. Thus, he has acquiesced in the action of the respondents and accepted his supersession”, the court remarked.

While the court acknowledged that the respondents had granted notional promotion to the petitioner through an order in 2021, it held that this did not provide a fresh cause of action to revive his stale claims.

“.. Benevolent approach towards the petitioner cannot give him a license to claim promotion to the higher ranks and the consequential benefits at this belated stage, particularly when he has acquiesced in the action of the respondents for all these years during his service career and thereafter”, the court opined.

Based on these considerations the court found the petition devoid of any merit and dismissed the same.

Case Title: MOHAMMAD ABDULLAH CHOWDHARY Vs J&K SMALL SCALE INDUSTRIES DEV. CORPORATION AND OTHERS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 217

Mr. Z. A. Shah, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Hanan, Advocate represented the petitioner, Ms. Rekha Wangnoo, GA appeared for the respondents.

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment