2007 (1) TMI 558 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the claim for disability pension is sustainable in law, then it would mould the relief but in no event grant any relief for a period exceeding three years from the date of presentation of the writ petition?

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to the dismissal of a writ petition on the grounds of delay and laches in filing the petition.

Detailed Analysis:
The appellant, a former army medical officer, filed a writ petition seeking disability pension after being invalidated out of service in 1983 due to medical issues. The Chief Controller of Defence Accounts rejected his disability pension claim in 1983, which led to an appeal being filed by the appellant. However, the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed in 2005 as highly belated, considering the significant delay of over 20 years in approaching the court.

The appellant argued that the claim for pension constitutes a continuing cause of action, emphasizing that the lack of intimation regarding the appeal's outcome prompted the filing of the writ petition in 2005. Conversely, the respondents contended that the appeal was dismissed in 1985, with due intimation provided to the appellant about the rejection. They maintained that the appellant could not benefit from his own delays and lapses in pursuing the matter.

The Supreme Court highlighted the importance of considering delay and laches in approaching the court, especially in cases invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Citing precedents, the court emphasized that unexplained delays may lead to the dismissal of writ petitions, as such delays can prejudice the opposing party and cause confusion or injustice. The court also noted that the nature of acts during the delay period and the impact on both parties are crucial factors in determining the equitable validity of the defense based on delay.

The court clarified that while the cause of action for pension continues monthly, excessive delays in filing petitions may result in rejection or limitation of relief granted. In this case, the Supreme Court remitted the matter back to the High Court to assess the appellant's disability pension claim on merits, limiting any relief granted to a reasonable period not exceeding three years from the date of the writ petition's presentation. The court refrained from expressing any opinion on the merit of the disability pension claim, leaving it to the High Court to decide based on the legal sustainability of the claim.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court disposed of the appeal without costs, directing the High Court to evaluate the disability pension claim on its merits while considering the limitations imposed on the relief granted due to the significant delay in approaching the court.