Delay and Laches Bar Extension of In-Persona Benefits to Similarly Situated Employees Who Acquiesced in Policy.

The Petitioners, qualified Medical Officers (MBBS, MD, MS, etc.) employed by the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. (NPCIL), sought the implementation of the Dynamic Assured Career Progression (DACP) Scheme as recommended by the 5th, 6th, and 7th Central Pay Commissions

They relied on a Supreme Court judgment dated August 24, 2023 (Union of India v. Deepak Sen), which granted DACP benefits to doctors in the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE)

The Respondents rejected the Petitioners' representations via communications dated April 9, 2025, and July 9, 2025, contending that NPCIL is a Public Sector Undertaking (PSU) following a "Merit Promotion Scheme" (MPS) rather than DACP, and that the Deepak Sen judgment was in personam

1. Whether the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Deepak Sen is a judgment in rem applicable to all similarly situated doctors or a judgment in personam

2. Whether the Petitioners are barred from seeking relief due to the principles of delay, laches, and acquiescence

The court primarily applied the principles governing the extension of judicial benefits to non-litigants as settled in State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and Ors. (2015)

This precedent establishes that while "similarly situated persons" should generally receive equal treatment under Article 14, this is subject to the exception of "laches, delays, and acquiescence"

Specifically, if a judgment is in personam (intended only for the parties before the court), third parties seeking its extension must prove their claim is not hit by delay. Conversely, if a judgment is in rem (touching upon policy for all), the authorities must extend benefits regardless of whether individuals approached the court

The Court observed that the DACP Scheme recommendations were accepted as far back as 2008, yet the Petitioners only approached the Court in 2025 after the Deepak Sen verdict

The Court characterized the Deepak Sen judgment as in personam in the context of the present Petitioners

It reasoned that the Petitioners had slept over their rights for over 15 years, during which they accepted the benefits of the Merit Promotion Scheme (MPS)

Following Arvind Kumar Srivastava, the Court held that the Petitioners acted as "fence-sitters" who only "jumped upon the bandwagon" after successful litigation by others

The failure to provide any explanation for this decade-long delay constituted acquiescence, negating their right to claim parity

It held that the Petitioners were not entitled to the DACP benefits because their claim was severely hit by unexplained delay and laches

Furthermore, the Deepak Sen judgment could not be automatically applied to the Petitioners as they failed to satisfy the threshold of timely pursuit of legal remedies required for the extension of an in personam judgment

Rule discharged