Karnataka HC: Rights Cannot Be Enforced After An Unreasonable Lapse Of Time

FACTS

• The petitioner was appointed as the Junior Engineer in the Karnataka Electricity Board and after completing graduation, he was promoted to Assistant Engineer.
• A chargesheet was issued against him and a departmental inquiry led to the imposition of a penalty of censure against him.
• After the penalty, he was promoted to Assistant Executive Engineer but it was after the promotion of his juniors.
• The petitioner gave several representations to the respondent that he should be promoted retrospectively but they were not considered.

BACKGROUND

• In 2012, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court against the respondents and it was disposed of by giving directions to the respondents to consider the petitioner.
• The respondents rejected his representation and the petitioner filed a writ petition again before the Court in 2014.
• During the pendency of the 2014 petition, he filed one more petition before the Court in 2020 challenging for the first time in 17 years, the order of penalty of censure that was imposed upon him.

SUBMISSIONS

• The counsel petitioner contended that the order of penalty was passed by an incompetent authority and was void from the very beginning.
• The counsel appearing for the respondent stated that the petition should be dismissed at the start and not be heard on merits, as it was filed after a very long duration and was not maintainable.

OBSERVATION AND ORDER

• The Court observed that the claim of the petitioner for retrospective promotion was not acceptable before the Court and previous judgments of CAT and High Court justified in giving retrospective promotion.
• It was noted that the penalty order which was passed 17 years ago was not brought up in question by the petitioner and throughout the case he kept on emphasizing on that he was entitled to promotion retrospectively.
• The Court refused to challenge the penalty order which was passed 17 years ago and stated that even though Article 226 doesn’t specifically have a limitation period, a writ petition should be filed within a reasonable time and 17 years was not a reasonable time.
• The Court dismissed both the petitions and applied no cost.

What do you think of this case?