Supreme Court Declines Relief to Retired Employee Who Sought Promotion and Arrears 11 Years After Retirement

The Supreme Court has held that a government employee cannot seek service benefits long after retirement, declining relief to a retired Excise Preventive Officer who had approached the Kerala Administrative Tribunal more than eleven years after superannuation seeking promotion and arrears of pay and allowances on par with his juniors.

A bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan delivered the judgment on September 16, 2025 while allowing a civil appeal filed by the State of Kerala against orders of the Kerala High Court and the Kerala Administrative Tribunal. The Court emphasised that every employee, like any vigilant citizen, is expected to assert her rights before an appropriate forum within a reasonable time and cannot revive stale claims merely by submitting repeated representations.

The case arose from an original application filed by respondent Krishnan N V before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in 2019. The respondent had retired from service on January 31, 2008 as a Preventive Officer in the Excise Department. More than a decade later he approached the Tribunal claiming that certain service benefits, including promotion and consequential arrears, had been extended to his juniors during their service but denied to him. The Tribunal allowed the application and directed the State to grant the benefits. The State’s writ petition challenging the order was dismissed by the Kerala High Court on February 3, 2025, leading to the present appeal.

The State argued before the Supreme Court that the respondent’s claim was hopelessly delayed. The plea had been filed over eleven years after retirement, and both the Tribunal and the High Court had failed to consider the principle of delay and laches, even though it went to the root of the case. Counsel submitted that permitting such belated claims would cause serious prejudice to the administration, as service records would have been closed and financial implications settled long ago.

In response, the retired officer contended that he had been making repeated representations during service and even after retirement but the authorities did not act. He argued that the silence of the State on his representations compelled him to seek judicial intervention. Counsel urged that mere passage of time should not deny legitimate relief, particularly when juniors had been given the benefits in question.

After hearing the parties, the Supreme Court rejected the respondent’s defence. It noted that the original application itself had been filed in 2019, more than eleven years after retirement on January 31, 2008. The bench observed that the plea for promotion and arrears was “highly belated” and could not be entertained. The Court posed the central question of whether repeated representations can justify delay in approaching judicial forums, and answered it in the negative.

Referring to the judgment in State of U.P. v. Rajmati Singh (2022), the bench reiterated that repeated representations neither give rise to a fresh cause of action nor revive an old one. It also relied on State of Orissa v. Laxmi Narayan Das (2023), where the Court had held that delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant and that procrastination is the greatest thief of time. The ruling had cautioned that law does not permit a person to sleep over her rights and then rise like a phoenix, and that courts cannot indulge indolent litigants who compete with mythical figures such as Kumbhakarna or Rip Van Winkle.

The Supreme Court therefore set aside the orders of the Tribunal and the High Court, concluding that the respondent’s claim was barred by delay and laches. It held that the plea filed more than eleven years after retirement could not be sustained in law.

The decision reinforces the principle that service matters must be agitated without undue delay. Employees are required to act with vigilance and diligence during their service tenure, and repeated unaddressed representations cannot extend limitation or revive extinguished claims.

Case Title: State of Kerala & Ors v. Krishnan N V

Date of Judgment: September 16, 2025

Bench: Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan