High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-02-17Dismissed

Ramabadran v. Union of India and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.33607 OF 2019(A)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P.V.ASHA
Judgment Date: 2020-02-17
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is dismissed.
Final Disposition: Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Ramabadran

Respondents

Union of India
Director General of Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF)
Special Director General, North East Zone, CRPF, Guwahati

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• M.P. Madhavankutty
• Shri Shijoy John Mathew

Counsels for Respondents

• Sm t. G. Maheswary

Case Synopsis & Summary

Ramabadran, a 1967 entrant in the CRPF, challenged his 1977 dismissal under Ext.P1 for unauthorised absence from 12.01.1976 to 16.05.1977, via WP(C) No.33607 of 2019(A) before the Kerala High Court. He sought a direction to the Special Director General, CRPF, North East Zone, Guwahati, to decide his Ext.P2 representation (dated 17.10.2019) and to pass appropriate orders. His counsel urged that, in light of precedents like Bhuvanendran N. v. Union of India and Rajan C. v. Secretary, Ministry of Defence, the delay in challenging the dismissal should be condoned since his service record and the enforcement of CRPF rules were at issue. The respondents contended that the petitioner slept on his rights for 42 years, rendering relief untimely and contrary to settled law on laches and delay. The court noted the extreme lapse, finding the petitioner not vigilant in vindicating his rights and thus barred by laches. Citing Union of India v. Chaman Rana, P.S. Sadasivaswamy and Bhoop Singh, the court held that a belated challenge to a dismissed service member, without a cogent explanation, cannot be entertained under Article 226. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition, emphasizing that stale claims and unexplained delays negate relief even when merits may be otherwise favorable.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 10(m) of CRPF ActArticle 226 of the Constitution of India

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Laches / Delay in approaching the court as a ground to refuse relief
Stale claims doctrine
Duty of vigilance in agitating rights
Discretionary relief under Article 226 should not be exercised for inordinate delays

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner’s counsel urged condonation of the 42-year delay in approaching the authorities, relying on earlier rulings (Bhuvanendran N. and Rajan C.) which had condoned similar delays in service matters, particularly where dismissal stemmed from unauthorised absence. It was contended that the petitioner continued to be a serving member and that the delay was not inordinate given the harsh conditions, and that a decision on Ext.P2 should be promptly made to avoid grave injustice.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents’ counsel emphasized laches and inordinate delay, arguing that a belated challenge to dismissal cannot be entertained under Article 226, particularly where there is an unexplained 42-year gap. They relied on established jurisprudence (Chaman Rana, Sadasivaswamy, Bhoop Singh) to contend that such stale claims should be barred despite the merits.

Cited Precedents (5)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Bhuvanendran N v. Union of India and Others	2014 (3) KHC 286	Partly Overruled / Limited	The court discusses this case as illustrating condonation of delay in certain contexts but declines to apply such condonation here due to the 42-year delay, thereby limiting its relevance.
Rajan C v. Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Others	2009 (1) KHC 151	Partly Overruled / Limited	Used to show that delays may be excused in some pension-related scenarios, but not controlling in the present case given the long lapse and lack of cogent justification.
Union of India v. Chaman Rana	(2018) 5 SCC 798	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that those who are not vigilant in enforcing their rights are not entitled to relief under Article 226.
P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu	(1975) 1SCC 152	Positive	Cited for the principle that courts should exercise discretion against granting relief for stale claims and delays.
Bhoop Singh v. Union of India	(1992) 3 SCC 136	Positive	Affirmed the rule that inordinate and unexplained delay or laches constitutes grounds to refuse relief.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Ramabadran v. Union of India and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** **MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 28TH MAGHA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.33607 OF 2019(A)** ## **PETITIONER:** **RAMABADRAN AGED 66 YEARS** **S/O.VISHWANATHAN NAIR, SREE NILAYAM HOUSE, EDAPPON, AYIRANIKUDI.P.O, PIN-688011, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT** **BY ADVS.** **SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY SHRI. SHIJOY JOHN MATHEW** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SOUTH BLOCK, DELHI, PIN-110011 2 DIRECTOR GENERAL OF CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, BLOCK NO.1, CGO COMPLEX, LODI ROAD, NEW DELHI, PIN-110003** **3 SPECIAL DIRECTOR GENERAL** **NORTH EAST ZONE, CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE, 9TH MILE, GUWAHATI, ASSAM, PIN-781 023** ## **BY ADV. SMT.G.MAHESWARY** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.33607 OF 2019(A)** 2 ## **J U D G M E N T** Petitioner claims that he was serving the CRPF since 1967 and was dismissed from service as per Ext.P1 order dated 18.05.1977, consequent to conviction under Section 10(m) of CRPF Act on account of unauthorised absence from 12.01.1976 to 16.05.1977. It is stated that he submitted Ext.P2 representation before the second respondent on 17.10.2019 and though as per Ext.P3 letter, he was informed that the representation was being forwarded to the Special DG, North East Zone, CRPF, Guwahati, no further action was taken. Petitioner has therefore sought for a direction to the 3[rd] respondent-the Special Director General to pass appropriate orders on his representation Ext.P2. 2. When the delay in approaching even the respondents i.e., for the period from 1977 to 2019 was pointed out to the learned counsel for the **WP(C).No.33607 OF 2019(A)** 3 petitioner, Shri M.P. Madhavankutty argued that in the light of the judgments in **Bhuvanendran N v. Union of India and Others** [2014 (3) KHC 286] and **Rajan C v. Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Others** [2009 (1) KHC 151], the delay in this case is liable to be condoned, as the petitioner was serving the CRPF and his dismissal was on the ground of unauthorised absence, which according to the learned counsel, was in gross violation of rules. 3. In the judgment in **Bhuvanendran** 's case (supra) it is seen that petitioner therein was discharged from service on 01.05.1981. His representation was rejected initially in the year 2000 and thereafter in 2003 and writ petition was filed in 2004. Seeing that the claim raised there, was for pensionary benefits, this Court found that the delay was liable to be condoned, in the case of personnel of armed services, who had been working in rough and harsh places as well as in the case of low **WP(C).No.33607 OF 2019(A)** 4 paid employees. 4. The judgment in **Rajan C v. Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Others** [2009 (1) KHC 151] the issue was relating to the stoppage of disability pension which was granted but not paid. In that case though there was a delay of 26 years, it was found that orders were already issued granting the petitioner therein pension with effect from 01.02.1980 and that the payment order was also issued. 5. In the present case the petitioner has simply stated that after his dismissal from service as per Ext.P1 order dated 18.05.1977 he did not receive any benefits though he tried every means possible. 6. From the pleadings it is seen that the first representation the petitioner submitted after the dismissal in 1977 was on 17.10.2019. That is 42 years after he was dismissed from service. That would **WP(C).No.33607 OF 2019(A)** 5 indicate that petitioner was not at all vigilant in vindicating his rights and rather he was sleeping over it. A person if he is aggrieved by an order should have challenged it at the earliest stage. But even for submitting a representation he has taken 42 years and filed this writ petition, still later. At this distance of time it would not be normally possible for any office to find out the records relating to his service and hence to answer the contentions. 7. It is settled law by a catena of judgments of this Court and the Apex Court including that in **Union of India v. Chaman Rana** _,_ [(2018) 5 SCC 798] that those who are not vigilant in agitating their rights /those who are sleeping over their rights are not entitled to any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution and that even filing of repeated representations would not revive a cause of action or a stale claim. It reiterated the dictum laid down in **WP(C).No.33607 OF 2019(A)** 6 in **P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of T.N** [(1975) 1SCC 152], where the Apex Court while considering a claim for promotion belated by 14 years, held that it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the courts to refuse to exercise their extraordinary powers under Article 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the court to put forward stale claims and try to unsettle settled matters. As held in **Bhoop Singh v. Union of India** _,_ [(1992) 3 SCC 136] inordinate and unexplained delay or laches is by itself a ground to refuse relief to a petitioner, irrespective of the merit of his claim, especially in service matters. A person cannot be permitted to challenge his dismissal after a period of more than 42 years, that too without any cogent explanation for the inordinate delay. In the above circumstances, I am of the **WP(C).No.33607 OF 2019(A)** 7 considered view that this writ petition does not deserve to be entertained. The petitioner does not deserve any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- **P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.** AS **WP(C).No.33607 OF 2019(A)** 8 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER OF DISMISSAL DATED 18.05.1997 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE COMMANDANT, 44TH IN C.R.P.F, GAUHATI-22.** **EXHIBIT P2 REPRESENTATION BEFORE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF CRPF DATED 17.10.2019** **EXHIBIT P3** **LETTER DATED 31.10.2019 TO THE SPECIAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF CRPF BY THE DIRECTORATE GENERAL, CRPF (MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS)**