Kerala High Court
Hema Purushothaman vs Union Of India on 6 October, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 14TH ASWINA, 1947
WA NO. 1451 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 10.04.2025 IN WP(C) NO.7528
OF 2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT:
HEMA PURUSHOTHAMAN,
AGED 58 YEARS
W/O. L/NK P.K. PURUSHOTHAMAN, PANAGAMKUNNEL HOUSE,
NEDUMKUNNAM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN -
686542
BY ADV SRI.V.R.GOPU
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY HOME SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME
AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI, PIN -
110001
2 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL,
BORDER SECURITY FORCE, C.G.O COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW
DELHI, PIN - 110005
3 THE OFFICER COMMANDANT,
O/O. COMMANDANT, HEADQUARTERS, 12 BATTALION, BORDER
SECURITY FORCE, SHIKAR, DERABABANANAK, GURDASPUR
(PUNJAB), PIN - 143506
BY ADVOCATES
SHRI.V.GIRISHKUMAR, SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL
DAYASINDHU SREEHARI N.S. FOR R1
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.09.2025, THE
COURT ON 06.10.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA No.1451 of 2025
2
2025:KER:72524
JUDGMENT
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.
The present intra-court appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 assails the judgment dated 10.04.2025 passed in WP(C) No.7528/2021, whereby the Writ Petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches as well as on merits.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant/petitioner is the wife of L/NK late P.K.Purushothaman. The appellant's husband joined the Border Security Force (BSF) on 02.02.1981. The husband of the appellant was dismissed from service by the Summary Security Force Court (SSFC) under Section 16(b) of the Border Security Force Act, vide order dated 02.08.1999. The husband filed a statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority which came to be dismissed vide order dated 02.08.1999. Thereafter, the husband had filed an appeal before the Government. Since that was not being decided, the husband filed OP No.29270/2000 seeking a direction to the Authorities to consider and pass appropriate orders. Vide judgment dated 18.10.2000, the same was disposed of with a direction to decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible. The statutory appeal came to be dismissed in the year 2000 itself. These orders were never challenged by the appellant's husband before he died on 23.09.2006. The present appellant/petitioner being the wife of the deceased employee filed the Writ Petition in the year 2021 challenging the order of dismissal passed in the year 1999 and the Appellate orders which were never challenged by her husband. The WA No.1451 of 2025 3 2025:KER:72524 present appellant had also claimed the Family Pension.
3. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the appellant's husband did not choose to challenge the orders and those orders have attained finality long back. Admittedly after the dismissal, the husband of the appellant was not getting any pension. There is a huge delay of about 20 years in approaching this Court. It is settled legal position that the Courts should not interfere or re-open a very old and stale case without there being any proper explanation for the huge delay. Otherwise, the same would amount to revival of the old and stale case after so many years. The appellant had no right to challenge the same since the husband did not choose to challenge the orders when he was alive for around 6 years after passing of the impugned orders. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paragraph 19 of State of Uttaranchal vs. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari [(2013) 12 SCC 179] held as under:
"19. From the aforesaid authorities it is clear as crystal that even if the court or tribunal directs for consideration of representations relating to a stale claim or dead grievance it does not give rise to a fresh cause of action. The dead cause of action cannot rise like a phoenix. Similarly, a mere submission of representation to the competent authority does not arrest time."
In paragraph 14 of the decision in Union of India vs. Chaman Rana [(2018) 5 SCC 798] , it is held as under:
"14. A subsequent pronouncement by this Court could not enthuse a fresh lease of life, or furnish a fresh cause of action to what was otherwise clearly a dead and stale claim. In State of Uttaranchal vs. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari, (2013) 12 SCC 179, it was observed that :-
"29.... Not for nothing, has it been said that WA No.1451 of 2025 4 2025:KER:72524 everything may stop but not the time, for we are all slaves of time. There may not be any provision providing for limitation but a grievance relating to promotion cannot be given a new lease of life at any point of time."
In paragraph 16 of the decision in Union of India and Others Vs. M.K. Sarkar, [(2010) 2 SCC 59], it reads as under:
"16. A court or tribunal, before directing "consideration" of a claim or representation should examine whether the claim or representation is with reference to a "live" issue or whether it is with reference to a "dead" or "stale" issue. If it is with reference to a "dead" or "stale" issue or dispute, the court/tribunal should put an end to the matter and should not direct consideration or reconsideration. If the court or tribunal deciding to direct "consideration" without itself examining the merits, it should make it clear that such consideration will be without prejudice to any contention relating to limitation or delay and laches. Even if the court does not expressly say so, that would be the legal position and effect."
4. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge rejecting the petition. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal being bereft of merit and substance is hereby dismissed.
sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI JUDGE sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M. JUDGE Nsd