Inordinate delay bars retired employees’ claims for parity in service benefits.

The petitioners, former Assistant Teachers initially appointed by Taluk Development Board/Municipal Units and later taken over by the State, retired in 1994.

Other employees had obtained relief concerning pension and pensionary benefits from the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT) in Application Nos. 1565–66 of 1995, decided on 31 October 1996; related applications challenging a cut-off date were partly allowed in 2002, and the State’s challenge was dismissed in 2004.

Relying on parity and a Government Order issued in 2014, the petitioners approached the KSAT in 2016 and sought condonation of delay.

The Tribunal dismissed their applications on the ground of approximately 20 years’ delay.

They challenged that order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

Under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, relief is discretionary and equitable; delay and laches are relevant considerations, and a claimant must provide an adequate explanation for approaching the court late.

Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. T.T. Murali Babu, (2014) 4 SCC 108, holds that courts must scrutinise the explanation for delay and that inordinate delay may defeat relief.

Under State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, (2015) 1 SCC 347, similarly situated employees ordinarily should receive equal treatment, but delay, laches and acquiescence are recognised exceptions; fence-sitters cannot claim relief merely because others succeeded earlier.

The Court also relied on Damor Nanabhai Manabhai v. State of Gujarat, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3105; Shivamma (Dead) by LRs v. Karnataka Housing Board, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969; and New Delhi Municipal Council v. Pan Singh, (2007) 9 SCC 278, in support of refusing relief for stale claims.

The petitioners retired in 1994 but did not approach the Tribunal within a reasonable time, despite the earlier Tribunal order in 1996 and the subsequent proceedings concerning similar employees.

The 2014 Government Order did not revive or extend the time for pursuing a claim that had already become stale.

Although the petitioners relied on parity, the Court held that the principle of equal treatment is subject to the recognised exception for delay and laches; the petitioners had not shown sufficient cause to excuse the approximately 20-year delay.

The Tribunal therefore committed no error in dismissing the applications, and the High Court found no basis to interfere.

It upheld the Tribunal’s dismissal of their applications on the ground of inordinate delay and laches, found no error warranting intervention under Articles 226 and 227, and dismissed the writ petition.