Kerala High Court
General Manager vs K.V. Joseph on 19 February, 2026
OP(CAT) No.25 of 2026 -: 1 :-
2026:KER:16443
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 30TH MAGHA, 1947
OP (CAT) NO. 25 OF 2026
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09.06.2025 IN MA 183/2025 IN OA NO.693 OF
2024 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH
PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS IN THE O.A.:
1 GENERAL MANAGER
SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PARK TOWN. P.O., CHENNAI, PIN - 600003
2 THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER
SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALAKKAD DIVISION, PIN - 678002
3 THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER
SOUTHERN RAILWAY, SALEM DIVISION, PIN - 636005
4 THE DIVISIONAL MECHANICAL ENGINEER
DIESEL LOCO SHED, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, ERODE, PIN - 638002
BY ADV SHRI.K.SHRIHARI RAO
RESPONDENT/APPLICANT IN THE O.A.:
K.V. JOSEPH,AGED 69 YEARS,S/O. LATE VARGHESE, PONARIKALAM
HOUSE, THANNEERMUKKOM POST, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA -688527 .
FORMER WELDER GR.III, (DIESEL) AT DIESEL LOCO SHED, SOUTHERN
RAILWAY, ERODE, PIN - 638002
BY ADV.SMT.ANJANA ARUN
THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.02.2026, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(CAT) No.25 of 2026 -: 2 :-
2026:KER:16443
Judgment
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.
The present Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the order dated 09.06.2025 passed in M.A. No.183 of 2025 in O.A.No.693 of 2024 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench whereby the application under Section 21(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking condonation of delay in filing the Original Application has been allowed.
Facts
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent herein filed the Original Application seeking compassionate allowances. The O.A. was filed with a delay of 12105 days for which separate M.A.No.180/183/2025 was preferred seeking condonation of delay OP(CAT) No.25 of 2026 -: 3 :-
2026:KER:16443 of the aforesaid period. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that it cannot be forgotten that the right to receive pension or compassionate allowance is a right inherent in service and is attached to the duties rendered by the respondent herein in the Railway service. The Tribunal further held that the non-
payment of compassionate allowance constitutes a continuous wrong and that the delay of more than 33 years shall not stand in the way of granting the same. Thus, the Tribunal allowed M.A.No.183 of 2025 and, being aggrieved thereby, the present Original Petition has been filed by the Railways.
Petitioner's Contentions
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the learned Tribunal erred in allowing the application seeking condonation of delay in as much as no cogent reasons have been assigned in the application seeking condonation of delay. The application is vague and it does not explain the huge and inordinate OP(CAT) No.25 of 2026 -: 4 :-
2026:KER:16443 delay on a day to day basis. Even the learned Tribunal did not consider the objections raised by the petitioners while allowing the applications. The respondent was removed from service on 10.11.1990 on the ground of unauthorized absence after following due procedure.
3.1 The learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that in M.A.No.183/2025, nothing is mentioned as to what prevented the respondent from approaching the court within time.
Not a single document with regard to ailment of the respondent has been brought on record to substantiate their claims merely making averments in the application would not be a ground to condone the inordinate delay. The learned counsel prays for setting aside the order passed by the learned Tribunal and, as a consequence, for dismissal of the O.A. as well.
OP(CAT) No.25 of 2026 -: 5 :-
2026:KER:16443
Respondent's contentions
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposed the prayer and submitted that the learned Tribunal was right in condoning the delay in as much as the compassionate allowance is the right of the respondent and is a continuing cause of action. The respondent was suffering from mental stress which got enhanced in an aggravated form, therefore, he had to undergo continued treatment for the same for more than a decade in a Sidha Vaidhyashala at Alappuzha. Due to all these unforeseen events which was beyond his control, he could not take proper steps to file the Original Application until 2023. The learned counsel for the respondent further contended that the respondent has also been diagnosed with cancer, and therefore, the delay is bona fide. Therefore, the order passed by the learned OP(CAT) No.25 of 2026 -: 6 :-
2026:KER:16443 Tribunal need not be interfered with. The Original Petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. Heard Sri K.Shri Hari Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt.Anjana Arun, the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.
6. Before coming to the conclusion, we would like to deal with the Apex Court judgments laying down the law so far as the condonation of delay is concerned.
Judicial Pronouncements (1) Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. v. K. Thangappan1
7. The Apex Court in Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. held as under:
6. Delay or laches is one of the factors which is to be borne in mind by the High Court when they exercise their discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. In an appropriate case the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the 1 (2006) 4 SCC 322 OP(CAT) No.25 of 2026 -: 7 :-
2026:KER:16443 lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite party. Even where fundamental right is involved the matter is still within the discretion of the Court as pointed out in Durga Prashad v. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports . Of course, the discretion has to be exercised judicially and reasonably."
(2) M.P. Ram Mohan Raja v. State of Tamil Nadu2
8. The Apex Court in the case of M.P. Ram Mohan Raja has held as under:
"11. So far as the question of delay is concerned, no hard and fast rule can be laid down and it will depend on the facts of each case. In the present case, the facts stare at the face of it that on 8-10- 1996 an order was passed by the Collector in pursuance of the order passed by the High Court, rejecting the application of the writ petitioner for consideration of the grant of mining lease. The writ petitioner sat tight over the matter and did not challenge the same up to 2003. This on the face of it appears to be very serious. A person who can sit tight for such a long time for no justifiable reason, cannot be given any benefit."
(3) Nadia Distt. Primary School Council v. Sristidhar Biswas3
9. The Apex Court in the case of Nadia Distt. Primary School Council held as under:
2
(2007) 9 SCC 78 3 (2007) 12 SCC 779 OP(CAT) No.25 of 2026 -: 8 :-
2026:KER:16443 "11. In the present case, the panel was prepared in 1980 and the petitioners approached the court in 1989 after the decision in Dibakar Pal. Such persons should not be given any benefit by the court when they allowed more than nine years to elapse. Delay is very significant in matters of granting relief and courts cannot come to the rescue of the persons who are not vigilant of their rights. Therefore, the view taken by the High Court condoning the delay of nine years cannot be countenanced."
(4) Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana4
10. The Apex Court in Jagdish Lal held as under:
"18. That apart, as this Court has repeatedly held, the delay disentitles the party to the discretionary relief under Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution."
(5) Shiv Dass Vs. Union of India5
11. The Apex Court in the case of Shiv Dass has held as under:
"6. Normally, in the case of belated approach writ petition has to be dismissed. Delay or laches is one of the factors to be borne in mind by the High Courts when they exercise their discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In an appropriate case the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite party. Even where fundamental 4 (1997) 6 SCC 538 5 (2007) 9 SCC 274 OP(CAT) No.25 of 2026 -: 9 :-
2026:KER:16443 right is involved the matter is still within the discretion of the Court as pointed out in Durga Prashad v. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports. Of course, the discretion has to be exercised judicially and reasonably."
(6) Mrinmary Maity v. Chhanda Koley6
12. The Apex Court in its latest judgment in the case of Mrinmary Maity in paragraph 11 has held thus:
"11. For filing of a writ petition, there is no doubt that no fixed period of limitation is prescribed. However, when the extraordinary jurisdiction of the writ court is invoked, it has to be seen as to whether within a reasonable time same has been invoked and even submitting of memorials would not revive the dead cause of action or resurrect the cause of action which has had a natural death. In such circumstances on the ground of delay and latches alone, the appeal ought to be dismissed or the applicant ought to be non-suited. If it is found that the writ petitioner is guilty of delay and latches, the High Court ought to dismiss the petition on that sole ground itself, in as much as the writ courts are not to indulge in permitting such indolent litigant to take advantage of his own wrong. It is true that there cannot be any waiver of fundamental right but while exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226, the High Court will have to necessarily take into consideration the delay and latches on the part of the applicant in approaching a writ court. This Court in the case of Tridip Kumar Dingal and others v. State of West Benchal - (2009) 1 SCC 768 has held to the following effect:6
2024 SCC OnLine 551 OP(CAT) No.25 of 2026 -: 10 :-
2026:KER:16443 "56. We are unable to uphold the contention. It is no doubt true that there can be no waiver of fundamental right. But while exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Articles 32, 226, 227 or 136 of the Constitution, this Court takes into account certain factors and one of such considerations is delay and laches on the part of the applicant in approaching a writ court. It is well settled that power to issue a writ is discretionary. One of the grounds for refusing reliefs under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution is that the petitioner is guilty of delay and laches."
13. Since the respondent was unable to explain inordinate and huge delay, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Tribunal ought not to have condone the delay. The compassionate allowance cannot be termed as a recurring cause of action. Moreover, the respondent never approached the authorities asking for compassionate allowance after 1990 when he was superannuated. It is for the first time only in the year 2023, he made a representation to the petitioners which was ultimately rejected as time barred.
14. In the light of various Apex Court judgments referred to hereinabove, we are of the considered opinion that the order OP(CAT) No.25 of 2026 -: 11 :-
2026:KER:16443 passed by the learned Tribunal cannot be countenanced.
Accordingly, the same is hereby set aside. M.A.No.183/2025 seeking condonation of delay stands rejected. As a consequence, the Original Application No.693 of 2024 also stands dismissed.
Original Petition is allowed. No order as to costs.
Sd/- SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI JUDGE Sd/- P.V.BALAKRISHNAN JUDGE css/ OP(CAT) No.25 of 2026 -: 12 :-
2026:KER:16443 APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) NO. 25 OF 2026 PETITIONER ANNEXURES :
Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FREE PASS ISSUED TO THE APPLICANT BY THE MECHANICAL DEPARTMENT OF ERODE STATION DATED 06.09.1989 IN THE O.A Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE SHARE CERTIFICATE WITH ACCOUNT NO.18346 ISSUED TO THE APPLICANT BY THE SOUTHERN RAILWAY EMPLOYEES' COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. DATED 01.07.1985 IN THE O.A. Annexure A3 A TURE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 26.07.2021 SUBMITTED BY THANKAMMA JOSEPH, WIFE OF THE APPLICANT IN THE O.A. Annexure A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.J/P 626LMPL2O21. DATED 20.09.2021 ISSUED FROM OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN THE O.A. Annexure A5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 27.07.2023 IN THE O.A. Annexure A5(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD SIGNED BY THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN THE O.A. Annexure A5(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD SIGNED BY THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN THE O.A Annexure A5(C) A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD SIGNED BY THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN THE O.A. Annexure A5(D) A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD SIGNED BY THE OFFICE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN THE O.A Annexure A6 A TRUE COPY OF RBE 16412008 DATED 04.11.2008 ISSUED BY THE RAILWAY BOARD IN THE O.A. Annexure A7 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. P(A)9O/MISC.
DATED 02.04.1997 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO SHRI. V.M SUDHEERAN IN THE MA IN OA. ALONG WITH TYPED COPY.
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OA NO. 693/2024 DATED 18.12.2024 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MA NO. 183/2025 IN OA NO.
693/2024 DATED 17.2.2025 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN.
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE UNNUMBERED MA IN OA NO.
OP(CAT) No.25 of 2026 -: 13 :-
2026:KER:16443
693/2024 TO ACCEPT DOCUMENT 17.2.2025 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN.
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN TO EXHIBIT P2 MA DATED 24.3.2025 Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9.6.2025 IN MA NO. 183/2025 IN OA NO. 693/2024 PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.