THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN WRIT APPEAL No.1055 OF 2025

JUDGMENT:

Heard Sri G.Satish Babu, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

2. This appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order dated 28.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.14604 of 2018 wherein the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground of inordinate delay and laches.

Brief facts of the case

3. It is the case of the appellant that he was employed as a Shramik with the respondent-Corporation. Following a disciplinary proceeding initiated on charges of unauthorized absence, he was removed from the service by an order dated 14.09.2007. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred a statutory appeal. Accordingly, the Appellate Authority i.e., the Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer, vide order dated 31.12.2007, exhibited compassionate and humanitarian approach and has set aside the order of removal. The Appellate Authority, however, substituted the order of removal from service with a specific and conditional relief. The appellant was directed to be "re-appointed afresh as Shramik" with the explicit stipulation that he would not be entitled to any previous service or attendant benefits. Since the appointment of the appellant was afresh, the intervening period from the date of removal to the date of re-appointment was treated as "not on duty". The appellant accepted the conditional re-appointment and he rejoined duty on 07.02.2008 and continued to serve under the terms of the 2007 order until his superannuation on 30.04.2018. The appellant chose to file a "mercy petition" in the year 2015 with a delay of nine years, thereby seeking to nullify the denial of past service, which was rejected on

09.12.2016.

4. Accordingly, the appellant filed the underlying writ petition assailing the order of rejection of his ‘mercy petition’. The learned Single Judge dismissed the said writ petition on the ground of delay and laches observing that the appellant/writ petitioner filed the mercy petition before respondent No.2 after nine years without explaining the silence for a period of about nine years and without giving any cogent reasons for the delay.

Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the present appeal has been preferred.

Contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant

5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the cause of action for filing the writ petition arose from the date of rejection of the mercy petition i.e., on 09.12.2016, on account of which the underlying writ petition filed in 2018. The writ petition is filed within a reasonable time considering the time line from the date of accrual of cause of action, namely, the rejection order of the ‘mercy petition’ dated 09.12.2016. Learned counsel also contends that the precedent relied upon by the learned Single Judge (W.A.Nos.1660 of 2018 & 593 of 2016) is in respect of a direct challenge to a punitive order, whereas the present challenge is to a subsequent, independent order of rejection.

6. We have taken note of the contentions urged.

Consideration of this Court

7. As per the doctrine of delay and laches, law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep over their rights. In the instant case, the appellant had accepted the appellate order dated 31.12.2007 and after the fresh appointment, the appellant worked as a re-appointed Shramik for nearly a decade and has been superannuated in the year 2018. The filing of mercy petition abruptly in 2015 caused the very essence of laches. However, in respect to the original cause of action that arose in 2007, the very mercy petition is belated and time-barred and is hit by the doctrine of delay and laches.

8. Though the appellant contended that rejection of a representation gives rise to a fresh cause of action, it is to be noted that the above principle is applicable only to representations made within a reasonable t