Madras High Court: When Action Becomes Barred By Time, Court Should Be Slow To Ignore Delay As Other Party Matures His Rights On Subject With Attainment Of Finality

The Madras High Court has held that when an action becomes barred by time, the Court should be slow to ignore delay for the reason that once limitation expires, other party matures his rights on the subject with attainment of finality.

The Court was considering a Writ Petition seeking direction to the Respondents to give notional promotion to the Petitioner as a Lab Assistant.

The single bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed observed, "Time is precious and the wasted time would never revisit. During efflux of time, newer causes would come up, necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the Courts. So a life span must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The statute providing limitation is founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim Interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). It is for this reason that when an action becomes barred by time, the Court should be slow to ignore delay for the reason that once limitation expires, other party matures his rights on the subject with attainment of finality. Though it cannot be doubted that refusal to condone delay would result in foreclosing the suiter from putting forth his cause but simultaneously the party on the other hand is also entitled to sit and feel carefree after a particular length of time, getting relieved from persistent and continued litigation."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate R. Suriya Narayanan while the Respondent was represented by Additional Government Pleader D.Sadiq Raja.

Facts of the Case

The Petitioner was initially appointed as a Sports Marker in the 2nd Respondent College. Though, as per the proceedings of the 2nd Respondent, dated October 27,1997, the post of Lab Assistant was to be filled in the ratio of 1:2, with one post filled through the direct recruitment and two posts through promotion, the Petitioner was not considered for the said post, since the Petitioner was imposed with the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year, without cumulative effect from November 10, 2008, pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Petitioner, under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.

The Petitioner had filed a Writ Petition and was subsequently promoted as a Lab Assistant. In the mean time, during the pendency of the said Writ Petition, the 1st Respondent reduced the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect to a Censure, which was not brought to the notice of the Court by the Respondents in the said Writ proceedings. Since the Censure was not a bar to get Promotion, the Petitioner submitted a representation requesting the Respondents to promote him with effect from July 09, 2008, on which date, two, out of three posts, were filled up, viz. one through the direct recruitment and the other by promoting a Record Clerk in the 2nd Respondent's College. His further representations, seeking notional promotion, were dismissed. Another representation was also dismissed via the impugned order.

Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that since the punishment of stoppage of increment was converted into Censure, the Petitioner was eligible for notional promotion as a Lab Assistant, as two posts, out of three posts were filled up and there was no currency of punishment and hence, the impugned order, rejecting the Representation of the Petitioner, seeking notional promotion was illegal.

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset noted that the representation of the Petitioner belatedly made just five months before his retirement and that the Petitioner filed the present Writ Petition for the relief claimed almost two years after his retirement from service.

The Court stated that there is no proper and satisfactory explanation for giving such a belated representation and also filing the present Writ Petition almost two years after his retirement.

"Hence, the Petitioner's claim for retrospective promotion and its consequential retirement benefits is a time barred one and at this belated stage, it cannot be sustained on the ground of laches," the Court observed.

It pointed out that the expression “sufficient cause“ and satisfactory explanation has been held to receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice and generally a delay in preferring a petition may be condoned in interest of justice where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fide is imputable to parties, seeking condonation of delay and referred to Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Katiji (1987) wherein it was held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are taken against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for, the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non deliberate delay.

The Madras High Court further said that the judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds, but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.

It stated that the Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy rights of parties and they virtually take away the remedy and they are meant with the objective that parties should not resort to dilatory tactics and sleep over their rights.

"They must seek remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The statute relating to limitation determines a life span for such legal remedy for redress of the legal injury, one has suffered," the Court observed.

It stressed that although it cannot be doubted that refusal to condone delay would result in foreclosing the suiter from putting forth his cause but simultaneously the party on the other hand is also entitled to sit and feel carefree after a particular length of time, getting relieved from persistent and continued litigation.

The Court concluded that seeking retrospective promotion and its consequential benefits, at this stage is highly belated and lacks justification.

The Writ Petition was accordingly dismissed as lacking merit.

Cause Title: S. Mayalagu vs. The Director of Collegiate Education (2025:MHC:436)

Click here to read/ download Order