Facts
The applicant, Mrs. Smita Shah, a retired Primary Teacher (P.R.T), was transferred from K.V. No. 2 Indore to K.V. Barwaha in 2007 and joined the transferred place.
Source reference: p.2She subsequently took voluntary retirement in 2011.
Source reference: p.2The applicant contended that she was declared surplus and transferred in public interest to adjust a junior, and that her transfer did not follow norms regarding surplus employees, thus she lost the benefit of ex-gratia affecting from surplus transfer under the Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme for surplus central government employees dated February 28, 2002.
Source reference: p.2The respondents filed a reply, raising a preliminary objection regarding the delay in filing the OA, stating that the cause of action arose in 2011, but the OA was filed in 2025 without explanation.
Source reference: p.2The respondents further submitted that the applicant's transfer to Barwaha was on her own request, followed by another transfer to Dhar on her own request where she worked from June 1, 2011, to December 15, 2011 (date of VRS approval).
Source reference: p.3She submitted pension papers without objection and a PPO was issued on January 27, 2012.
Source reference: p.3The respondents argued that the applicant raised the issue 13 years after her retirement, making it a stale claim.
Source reference: p.3Issues
Whether the Original Application, filed 13 years after the cause of action arose, is maintainable despite the significant delay and lack of explanation.
Source reference: p.2, p.3Whether the applicant is entitled to ex-gratia payment under the Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme for surplus central government employees dated February 28, 2002, given her claim of being declared surplus and improperly transferred.
Source reference: p.2, p.4Law Applied
The court applied the principle that inordinate and unexplained delay or laches is a ground to refuse relief, as established in Bhop Singh v. Union of India and others, (1992) 3 SCC 136.
Source reference: p.5This principle states that a petitioner is not entitled to relief if they have slept over their rights for years, irrespective of the merits of the claim.
Source reference: p.5The court also referenced High Court of Judicature of Patna v. Madan Mohan Prasad and others, (2011) 9 SCC 65, which supports the view that a belated claim without plausible explanation is not maintainable.
Source reference: p.5Reasoning
The court noted that the facts, including the applicant's transfers to Barwaha and Dhar on her own request, her application for voluntary retirement in November 2011, its approval in December 2011, her relief from service on December 15, 2011, and the issuance of her PPO on January 27, 2012, were undisputed.
Source reference: p.4The court found that the applicant's current claim for ex-gratia payment, based on her being declared surplus and the alleged non-compliance with the Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme policy during her transfer, was raised more than 13 years after her retirement.
Source reference: p.4The court reasoned that if the applicant had any grievance regarding her transfer or being declared surplus, she had the option to raise it at the relevant time, but she remained silent for a considerable period.
Source reference: p.4Citing established Supreme Court precedents, the court concluded that the inordinate and unexplained delay amounted to laches, making the claim unsustainable.
Source reference: p.5Holding
The court held that the applicant had not presented a case for interference as she slept over her rights for more than 13 years without providing a plausible explanation for the delay.
The Original Application No. 154/2025 was dismissed both on the ground of being a stale claim and on its merits.
Source reference: p.5There was no order as to costs.
Source reference: p.5Original Court PDF
Mrs. Smita Shah v. Union of India [Original Application No. 154 of 2025]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in