The Supreme Court has dismissed a Special Leave Petition seeking Assured Career Progression (ACP) financial benefits, ruling that a “dead cause of action” cannot be revived by submitting memorials and representations after an inordinate delay. The Bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale observed that while the issue of limitation generally does not bar the exercise of writ jurisdiction for legitimate benefits, such rights must be invoked at an appropriate time.
The case, titled Bhupal Singh Bhandari v. Union of India & Ors., arose from a Special Leave Petition challenging the final judgment of the Delhi High Court dated September 2, 2025. The petitioner, a retired employee, had approached the courts seeking the grant of ACP financial benefits. The Supreme Court, while condoning the delay in filing the present petition, dismissed the appeal on its merits, upholding the lower court’s finding that the plea was barred by “inordinate and unexplained delay.”
Background and Facts
The petitioner, Bhupal Singh Bhandari, retired from service on superannuation on May 31, 2003. However, he filed a Writ Petition (WPC No. 1964/2019) before the High Court of Delhi on February 23, 2019—approximately 16 years after his retirement. The High Court dismissed the petition, citing the significant delay. Consequently, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court against the High Court’s order.
Arguments of the Petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. O.P. Agarwal, assisted by Mr. Manish Kumar Gupta (Advocate-on-Record) and Ms. Harshita, argued that the cause of action arose later than the date of retirement. The counsel relied upon an order dated May 5, 2015, issued by the Department of Ministry of Home Affairs, Directorate General, Sashastra Seema Bal.
The petitioner contended that after the issuance of the 2015 notification, an order was passed turning down his claim. He submitted that this rejection, which came despite his representations, gave rise to a fresh cause of action, justifying his move to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Supreme Court rejected the petitioner’s contentions, emphasizing that he had remained inactive for over a decade.
The Bench observed:
“In the instant case, petitioner having superannuated in the year 2003 and till 2015, i.e., 05.05.2015, the date on which the Government of India issued the order, did not raise his little finger or in other words, he had gone to deep sleep. It is only when said order came to be passed, he woke up from his slumber and started submitting memorials and representations to revive the dead cause of action.”
The Court reiterated the legal principle that while limitation is not a strict ground to deny legitimate benefits flowing from vested rights, such relief cannot be granted if the rights are not invoked at the “appropriate time and at appropriate stage.”
Citation of Precedent
To substantiate its decision regarding the submission of repeated representations, the Court referred to its earlier judgment in Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. Through Its Chairman & Managing Director and Another Vs. K. Thangappan and Another [(2006) 4 SCC 322].
Quoting from the cited judgment, the Bench noted:
“It has been pointed out by this Court in a number of cases that representations would not be adequate explanation to take care of delay… there is a limit to the time which can be considered reasonable for making representations and if the Government had turned down one representation the making of another representation on similar lines will not explain the delay.”
Decision
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court had correctly “nipped at the bud” the petition on the ground of delay and laches. The Bench stated that in light of the settled position of law regarding belated approaches justified merely by representations, it was not inclined to entertain the petition.
The Special Leave Petition was dismissed.
Case Details:
Case Name: Bhupal Singh Bhandari v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 1838/2026
Coram: Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
