Contractual terms in leave sanction orders are binding and significant delays in claims affect the ability to seek redress, as upheld in the court's ruling.

Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.

The present intra-court appeal filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act , 1958 assails the judgment dated 02.04.2025 passed in WP(C) No.28041 of 2024 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a retired Conductor. He attained the age of superannuation on 30.11.2008. The appellant had filed the writ petition claiming the leave period availed by him with effect from 08.06.2004 to 30.11.2008 as qualifying service for pension and other benefits and also for payment of pension adding the said period towards pensionary benefits.

3. Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that it suffers from gross delay in approaching this Court. The order granting leave contains a clause that the appellant would not be entitled to any service benefits for the leave period including pension.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the findings of the learned Single Judge is perverse and therefore, the judgment is liable to be set aside. He further submitted that there is no delay on the part of the appellant since the pension is a recurring cause of action and the unamended Rule 26 of the KSR provides that the period of leave shall also be counted. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has committed an error, and the writ appeal deserves to be allowed.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer and submitted that the leave period availed by the appellant cannot be treated as dies non since the request was made by him. In fact if the issue raised in the writ petition was regarding non payment of pension, then certainly the petition would have been within limitation. But, in the present case, the appellant is asking for regularisation of the leave period availed by him from 2004 to 2008 which does not have a recurring cause of action. There is a huge delay of 20 years which has not been explained. In such a situation, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. Therefore, the present appeal being bereft of merit and substance is also liable to be dismissed.

6. Heard learned counsel on both sides and perused the records.

7. A similar issue cropped up for consideration before this Court in the case of Chairman and Managing Director, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Mathew John [2025 KHC 1868] as to whether an employee can claim Leave Without Allowance (LWA) period for pension computation when the leave sanction order explicitly excludes such benefits through specific contractual conditions. It was held that where leave sanction order contains express exclusion clauses stating that LWA period will not count for pensionary benefits, such contractual terms are binding and the period cannot be reckoned as qualifying service for pension computation.

8. Learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that even if Rule 26 of KSR provides for counting of leave period with or without allowances for the service benefits unless otherwise specified, would not come to the rescue of the appellant as the leave sanctioning order specifically provides that the leave period shall not be counted for any service benefits including pension. The appellant never challenged the terms and conditions of the leave for the last 20 years, and approached this Court only in the year 2024. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was right in coming to the conclusion that there is gross delay in approaching the court. The relief claimed in the writ petition is not in respect of the pensionary benefits but the same is in respect of the counting/regularisation of the period of absence from 2004 to 2008 which is hopelessly time barred. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion th