A 25-year delay bars retrospective claims for pay and allowances based on in-charge service.

The appellant was appointed as a Store Keeper in the Tamil Nadu Tourism and Development Corporation Limited in 1988.

Within two years, he was posted as Manager-in-charge and, thereafter, as Supervisor-in-charge with effect from 10 January 1990.

He continued in that capacity for approximately 25 years and retired on 31 March 2015.

He subsequently filed W.P. No. 17462 of 2015 seeking the pay and allowances applicable to the post of Supervisor for the period from 10 January 1990 until his retirement.

The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition principally on the ground of delay and laches, leading to the present intra-court appeal.

Whether the appellant could claim the pay and allowances of Supervisor retrospectively after an unexplained delay of approximately 25 years from his posting as Supervisor-in-charge.

Whether the appellant’s prolonged appointment as Supervisor-in-charge, in the absence of formal promotion and service rules, entitled him to the monetary benefits of the post of Supervisor.

Whether the Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches.

The Court applied the principle that service-related claims, including claims concerning promotion, seniority, pay and allowances, must be brought within a reasonable period and that stale claims may be rejected on the ground of delay and laches.

An employee who has slept over an alleged right cannot ordinarily seek retrospective monetary relief after an inordinate and unexplained delay.

The Court further held that, even in the absence of formally codified service rules, established principles of service jurisprudence, including equality and non-discrimination in appointments and promotions, must be followed; the absence of rules cannot justify arbitrary or irregular treatment of employees.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited in the judgment.

The Court acknowledged that permitting an employee to function as Supervisor-in-charge for 25 years could reflect a serious administrative irregularity and emphasised the need for equal and non-arbitrary treatment of Corporation employees.

However, those observations did not overcome the appellant’s prolonged inaction.

He was posted as Supervisor-in-charge on 10 January 1990, retired on 31 March 2015, and sought monetary benefits only after the lapse of approximately 25 years.

Applying the doctrine of delay and laches, the Court held that a claim for retrospective pay and allowances of such vintage was stale and that the delay was uncondonable.

The Court therefore did not grant relief notwithstanding the administrative irregularity apparent from the prolonged in-charge arrangement.

The order dated 20 July 2023 in W.P. No. 17462 of 2015 was confirmed, and W.A. No. 3081 of 2023 was dismissed without costs.