Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhajan Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 1 December, 2025
CWP-35517-2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
108
CWP-35517-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 01.12.2025
Bhajan Singh and others
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Harsh Chopra, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)
1. Prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to consider and decide the legal notice dated 04.06.2025 (Annexure P-11) and to extend the benefit of two additional increments to the petitioners.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contend that the petitioners are graduate employees of the Patiala Central Cooperative Bank Limited, who were appointed before 17.09.1987. The Executive Committee of the Punjab State Cooperative Bank Limited passed a Resolution No.6 dated 10.02.1973 (Annexure P-1) granting two additional increments to graduate employees upto the level of Senior Accountants. The said benefit was granted to some similarly situated employees on 02.05.1984 and 05.10.2005, as discernible from 1 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 03-12-2025 04:33:44 ::: CWP-35517-2025 2 Annexure P-5, however, the same was denied to the petitioners. The identical issue was decided by this Court in CWP-20712-2006, titled as Jaswinder Singh and others vs The Registrar, Cooperative Socieites, Punjab and others and CWP-14244-2013, titled as Bhupender Kumar and others vs State of Punjab and others, vide judgment dated 04.01.2024 (Annexure P-8). The intra-court appeal bearing LPA-3337- 2024, titled as The Patiala Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Patiala vs The State of Punjab and others, was dismissed as withdrawn on 07.01.2025. As such, the judgment in Jaswinder Singh's case (supra) was upheld. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submit that the said judgment operates as judgment in rem as the cut-off date fixed by the respondent/Bank for extending the benefit of two additional increments was declared invalid. Consequently, the petitioners seeking the similar relief served a legal notice on 04.06.2025 (Annexure P-11) and a reminder on 11.09.2025 (Annexure P-12), however, the same remained unheeded and the benefit as given to other similarly situated employees have not been extended to the petitioners.
3. Learned State counsel, at the outset, submits that petitioner No.1 had retired on 30.09.2019, petitioner No.2 stood retired on 31.03.2012 and deceased husband of petitioner No.3 had retired on 31.05.2020 and the petitioners being the fence-sitters and indolent cannot be allowed to avail the benefit of judgment rendered by this Court in Jaswinder Singh's case (supra), as the same was filed by diligent employees in the year 2006 whereas the petitioners have woken 2 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 03-12-2025 04:33:44 ::: CWP-35517-2025 3 up after a favourable order was passed in the aforesaid writ petition. Further, by serving the legal notice, the petitioners cannot be allowed to revive the dead or stale claim of the petitioners. The claim of the petitioners is hopelessly barred and suffered from delay and laches.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
5. It is trite law that the delay in approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be condoned if sufficient cause is indicated or a reasonable explanation is provided for the same. However, the facts of the matter at hand indicate otherwise. Learned counsel petitioners has failed to specify any compelling or extenuating circumstance which prevented the petitioners from approaching this Court for such a long time. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by a three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chairman/Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Limited and Others vs. Ram Gopal (2021) 13 SCC 225, wherein, the following was held:
"16. Whilst it is true that limitation does not strictly apply to proceedings under Articles 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India, nevertheless, such rights cannot be enforced after an unreasonable lapse of time. Consideration of unexplained delays and inordinate laches would always be relevant in writ actions, and writ courts naturally ought to be reluctant in exercising their discretionary jurisdiction to protect those who have slept over wrongs and allowed illegalities to fester. Fence- sitters cannot be allowed to barge into Courts and cry for their rights at their convenience, and vigilant citizens ought not to be treated alike with mere opportunists. On multiple occasions, it has been restated that there are implicit limitations of time within which writ remedies can 3 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 03-12-2025 04:33:44 ::: CWP-35517-2025 4 be enforced. In S.S. Balu v. State of Kerala, this Court observed thus:
"17. It is also well settled principle of law that "delay defeats equity". .... It is now a trite law that where the writ petitioner approaches the High Court after a long delay, reliefs prayed for may be denied to them on the ground of delay and laches irrespective of the fact that they are similarly situated to the other candidates who obtain the benefit of the judgment."
(emphasis added)
6. Further, in Mrinmoy Maity vs. Chhanda Koley and others 2024 AIR SC 2717, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically observed that the High Courts must factor in the delay, while exercising its discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was further opined that undue and unexplained delay may be reason enough to dismiss a petition as indolent litigants ought not to be encouraged by writ Courts.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal and another v. Sri Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari and others, 2013(6) SLR 629, while considering the issue regarding delay and laches and referring to earlier judgments on the issue, opined that repeated representations made will not keep the issues alive. A stale or a dead issue/dispute cannot be got revived even if such a representation has either been decided by the authority or got decided by getting a direction from the court as the issue regarding delay and laches is to be decided with reference to original cause of action and not with reference to any such order passed. Delay and laches on the part of a government servant may deprive him of the benefit which had been given to others.
4 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 03-12-2025 04:33:44 ::: CWP-35517-2025 5 Article 14 of the Constitution of India, in a situation of that nature, will not be attracted as it is well known that law leans in favour of those who are alert and vigilant. Even equality has to be claimed at the right juncture and not on expiry of reasonable time. Even if there is no period prescribed for filing the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, yet it should be filed within a reasonable time. An order permitting a junior should normally be challenged within a period of six months or at the most in a year of such promotion. Though it is not a strict rule, the courts can always interfere even subsequent thereto, but relief to a person, who allows things to happen and then approach the court and puts forward a stale claim and try to unsettle settled matters, can certainly be refused on account of delay and laches. Any one who sleeps over his rights is bound to suffer. An employee who sleeps like Rip Van Winkle and got up from slumber at his own leisure, deserves to be denied the relief on account of delay and laches. Relevant paragraphs from the aforesaid judgment are extracted below:
"13. We have no trace of doubt that the respondents could have challenged the ad hoc promotion conferred on the junior employee at the relevant time. They chose not to do so for six years and the junior employee held the promotional post for six years till regular promotion took place. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondents is that they had given representations at the relevant time but the same fell in deaf ears. It is interesting to note that when the regular selection took place, they accepted the position solely because the seniority was maintained and, thereafter, they knocked at the doors of the
5 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 03-12-2025 04:33:44 ::: CWP-35517-2025 6 tribunal only in 2003. It is clear as noon day that the cause of action had arisen for assailing the order when the junior employee was promoted on ad hoc basis on 15.11.1983. In C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining and another, (2008) 10 SCC 115, a two-Judge Bench was dealing with the concept of representations and the directions issued by the court or tribunal to consider the representations and the challenge to the said rejection thereafter. In that context, the court has expressed thus:-
"Every representation to the Government for relief, may not be replied on merits. Representations relating to matters which have become stale or barred by limitation, can be rejected on that ground alone, without examining the merits of the claim. In regard to representations unrelated to the Department, the reply may be only to inform that the matter did not concern the Department or to inform the appropriate Department. Representations with incomplete particulars may be replied by seeking relevant particulars. The replies to such representations, cannot furnish a fresh cause of action or revive a stale or dead claim."
8. In Union of India and others v. M. K. Sarkar, (2010) 2 SCC 59, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after referring to C. Jacob's case (supra) has ruled that when a belated representation in regard to a "stale" or "dead" issue/dispute is considered and decided, in compliance with a direction by the court/tribunal to do so, the date of such decision cannot be considered as furnishing a fresh cause of action for reviving the "dead" issue or time-barred dispute. The issue of limitation or delay and laches should be considered with reference to the original cause of action and not with reference to the date on which an order is passed in compliance with a Court's direction. Neither a court's direction to 6 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 03-12-2025 04:33:44 ::: CWP-35517-2025 7 consider a representation issued without examining the merits, nor a decision given in compliance with such direction, will extend the limitation, or erase the delay and laches.
9. 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 Karnataka Power Corpn. Ltd. through its Chairman & Managing Director v. K. Thangappan and another, (2006) 4 SCC 322, the Court took note of the factual position and laid down that when nearly for two decades the respondent- workmen therein had remained silent mere making of representations could not justify a belated approach.
10. Mere filing or consideration of belated representations cannot revive a stale or dead claim as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Gopal's case (supra), M.K. Sarkar's case (supra), C. Jacob's case (supra) and Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari' case (supra), which consistently affirm that delay defeats a claim and repeated representations do not extend time or create fresh cause of action and the writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised in favour of indolent litigants who have slept over their rights.
11. In view of the above discussions, this Court does not find it appropriate to invoke its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 7 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 03-12-2025 04:33:44 ::: CWP-35517-2025 8 226 of the Constitution of India as the petitioners have approached this Court after an inordinate and wholly unexplained delay of more than 13 years. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
01.12.2025
yakub
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
8 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 03-12-2025 04:33:44 :::