Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, SYAM KUMAR V.M.
Sepoy Suresh Kumar G. – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, Represented By Its Secretary, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.
Heard finally with the consent of both the parties.
2. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been led challenging the Ext.P3 order dated 22.08.2023 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), Regional Bench, Kochi in O.A.No .236 of 2021.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was an Ex Sepoy with No .2591079 N, who was recruited in the Army on 13.06.1986. He was declared as a deserter on 29.10.1993 and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. He was dismissed from service on 20.04.2004 for his absence from service. Being aggrieved, the wife of the petitioner had made a correspondence praying for grant of disability pension which was rejected by the respondents.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner was in a low medical category, the Medical Board was not convinced because he had been declared a deserter. The learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that no procedure was adopted as per Rule 17 of the ARMY RULES , therefore, the dismissal of the petitioner was vitiated by procedural irregularities. In such circumstances, the peti
Inordinate delay of 17 years in filing a writ petition can preclude relief under Article 226, emphasizing the principle that delay defeats equity.
Inordinate delay in filing appeal lacks satisfactory explanation, mandating dismissal under principles of delay and laches, emphasizing that delay defeats equity.
Point of Law : Doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in ....
Delay in challenging promotions can bar relief; timely action is crucial in promotion matters.
A claimant is barred from seeking relief under Article 226 due to inordinate delay and laches, which denies any revival of stale claims.
Inordinate delay in filing a writ petition under Article 226 can bar relief, emphasizing that applicants must act within a reasonable timeframe to preserve their rights.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
