Repeated Representations Do Not Cure Delay in Challenging Seniority, Rules Court
In a significant ruling, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court at Srinagar, presided by Justice Sanjay Dhar, has dismissed the review petition filed by Manish Kumar Bharti, seeking reconsideration of his seniority in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). The review petition was filed against the court's previous order dated December 3, 2020, which dismissed Bharti's writ petition due to delay and laches.
Bharti had initially filed a writ petition in 2017, challenging his seniority placement in the CRPF, a position that was established following his appointment in 2000. His contention was that due to delayed police verification, he was unable to commence training with his original batch (30th Batch) and was subsequently assigned to the 33rd Batch. Bharti argued that his seniority should reflect his original batchmates from the 30th Batch and had made multiple representations to the respondents over the years, which were consistently rejected.
The respondents countered that Bharti's seniority had been appropriately fixed in accordance with the relevant CRPF rules and orders. They highlighted that Bharti's repeated failure to timely join the training with his designated batch led to the current seniority assignment.
Justice Dhar emphasized the legal principle that filing repeated representations does not renew or extend the cause of action for a time-barred issue. The court noted Bharti's awareness of his seniority position since 2002, and his continued representations did not suffice as a valid explanation for the delay in filing the writ petition. The judgment cited the Supreme Court's stance in similar cases, underscoring that the cause of action arises at the point of grievance, not upon the rejection of stale claims.
The court further observed that the petitioner failed to include affected parties, whose rights had crystallized over the years, in his petition, rendering it non-maintainable. The decision reaffirmed that the discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution is not available to litigants who approach the court with undue delay, particularly when it affects others' rights.
In dismissing the review petition, Justice Dhar concluded that there was no error apparent on the record to warrant overturning the initial dismissal. The ruling reinforces the judiciary's emphasis on vigilant pursuit of legal remedies and the significance of timely legal action.
Bottom line:-
Filing repeated representations does not cure delay and laches in approaching the court for relief. A fresh cause of action cannot arise from rejection of such representations if the issue was already time-barred.
Statutory provision(s): Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order XLVII Rule 1, CRPF Rules, 1955 Rule 8(b)(ii), DOP&P OM No.35015/2/93(D) dated 09.08.1995
Manish Kumar Bharti v. Union of India, (Jammu And Kashmir)(Srinagar) : Law Finder Doc id # 2894842
