Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harbans Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 23 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054697
CWP-8964-2024 1 2024:PHHC:054697
124
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-8964-2024
Date of Decision:23.04.2024
HARBANS SINGH ......... Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present : Mr. Navjot Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab.
****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles
226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking direction to respondents to
grant Assured Career Progression Scale (for short 'ACP') w.e.f.
01.01.1996.
2. The petitioner worked with respondent from August' 1981 to
March' 2004. He is claiming benefits of ACP w.e.f. 01.01.1996. The said
incentive was introduced by way of notification dated 25.09.1998
(Annexure P-1). The petitioner was in service at the time of introduction
of said scale. He opted to remain silent from 1981 to 2004. He retired on
31.03.2004. He is relying upon judgment of this Court in Amar Nath Vs.
State of Punjab and others, CWP No.8573 of 2008 dated 28.05.2009
(Annexure P-4). He opted to remain silent despite said judgment.
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054697
CWP-8964-2024 2 2024:PHHC:054697
3. On being confronted with afore-stated facts, Mr. Navjot
Singh, Advocate submits that a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide
judgment dated 30.01.2019 has extended benefit of ACP as was extended
in the case of Amar Nath (supra), thus, delay needs to be ignored and
this Court should entertain writ petition.
4. No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down as to when the High
Court should refuse to exercise its jurisdiction in favour of a party who
moves it after considerable delay and is otherwise guilty of laches.
Discretion must be exercised judiciously and reasonably. In the event that
the claim made by the applicant is legally sustainable, delay should be
condoned. Where illegality is manifest, it cannot be sustained on the sole
ground of laches. When substantial justice and technical considerations
are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to
be preferred. State cannot deprive vested right because of a non-
deliberate delay.
5. In Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Dugal Kumar (2008) 14 SCC
295, supreme court has considered scope of interference in case of delay
and laches. Court has held:
"24. As to delay and laches on the part of the writ petitioner,
there is substance in the argument of learned counsel for the
appellant Company. It is well settled that under Article 226
of the Constitution, the power of a High Court to issue an
appropriate writ, order or direction is discretionary. One of
the grounds to refuse relief by a writ court is that the
petitioner is guilty of delay and laches. It is imperative,
where the petitioner invokes extraordinary remedy under
Article 226 of the Constitution, that he should come to the
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054697
CWP-8964-2024 3 2024:PHHC:054697
court at the earliest reasonably possible opportunity.
Inordinate delay in making the motion for a writ is indeed an
adequate ground for refusing to exercise discretion in favour
of the applicant."
6. In Union of India v. N. Murugesan, (2022) 2 SCC 25, court
has observed that a neglect on the part of a party to do an act which law
requires must stand in his way for getting the relief or remedy. The Court
laid down two essential factors i.e. first, the length of the delay and
second, the developments during the intervening period. Delay in
availing the remedy would amount to waiver of such right. Relevant
extracts of the judgment read as:
"20. The principles governing delay, laches, and
acquiescence are overlapping and interconnected on many
occasions. However, they have their distinct characters and
distinct elements. One can say that delay is the genus to
which laches and acquiescence are species. Similarly, laches
might be called a genus to a species by name acquiescence.
However, there may be a case where acquiescence is
involved, but not laches. These principles are common law
principles, and perhaps one could identify that these
principles find place in various statutes which restrict the
period of limitation and create non-consideration of
condonation in certain circumstances. They are bound to be
applied by way of practice requiring prudence of the court
than of a strict application of law. The underlying principle
governing these concepts would be one of estoppel. The
question of prejudice is also an important issue to be taken
note of by the court.
21. The word "laches" is derived from the French language
meaning "remissness and slackness". It thus involves
unreasonable delay or negligence in pursuing a claim
involving an equitable relief while causing prejudice to the
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054697
CWP-8964-2024 4 2024:PHHC:054697
other party. It is neglect on the part of a party to do an act
which law requires while asserting a right, and therefore,
must stand in the way of the party getting relief or remedy.
22. Two essential factors to be seen are the length of the
delay and the nature of acts done during the interval. As
stated, it would also involve acquiescence on the part of the
party approaching the court apart from the change in
position in the interregnum. Therefore, it would be
unjustifiable for a Court of Equity to confer a remedy on a
party who knocks its doors when his acts would indicate a
waiver of such a right. By his conduct, he has put the other
party in a particular position, and therefore, it would be
unreasonable to facilitate a challenge before the court. Thus,
a man responsible for his conduct on equity is not expected
to be allowed to avail a remedy."
7. A two Judge Bench of Supreme Court recently in 'Mrinmoy
Maity Vs. Chhanda Koley and others' 2024 SCC OnLine SC 551 has
held that High Court ought to dismiss petition on the ground of delay and
laches where there is no explanation of delay. An applicant who
approaches the Court belatedly or in the other words sleeps over his
rights for a consideration period ought not to be granted the extraordinary
relief by writ Courts. Delay defeats equity. High Court may refuse to
invoke its writ jurisdiction if laxity on the part of applicant has allowed
the cause of action to drift away and attempts are made to rekindle the
lapsed cause of action. Multiple communications cannot create cause of
action. The relevant extracts of the judgment are reproduced as below:
"9. Having heard rival contentions raised and on perusal
of the facts obtained in the present case, we are of the
considered view that writ petitioner ought to have been non-
suited or in other words writ petition ought to have been
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054697
CWP-8964-2024 5 2024:PHHC:054697
dismissed on the ground of delay and latches itself. An
applicant who approaches the court belatedly or in other
words sleeps over his rights for a considerable period of
time, wakes up from his deep slumber ought not to be
granted the extraordinary relief by the writ courts. This
Court time and again has held that delay defeats equity.
Delay or latches is one of the factors which should be born
in mind by the High Court while exercising discretionary
powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a
given case, the High Court may refuse to invoke its
extraordinary powers if laxity on the part of the applicant to
assert his right has allowed the cause of action to drift away
and attempts are made subsequently to rekindle the lapsed
cause of action.
10. The discretion to be exercised would be with care and
caution. If the delay which has occasioned in approaching
the writ court is explained which would appeal to the
conscience of the court, in such circumstances it cannot be
gainsaid by the contesting party that for all times to come
the delay is not to be condoned. There may be myriad
circumstances which gives rise to the invoking of the
extraordinary jurisdiction and it all depends on facts and
circumstances of each case, same cannot be described in a
straight jacket formula with mathematical precision. The
ultimate discretion to be exercised by the writ court depends
upon the facts that it has to travel or the terrain in which the
facts have travelled.
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
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054697
CWP-8964-2024 6 2024:PHHC:054697
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."
8. In the case in hand, the cause of action arose in 1998 and at
that point of time petitioner was in service. He retired in 2004. This Court
in Amar Nath (Supra) allowed claim of petitioners therein on
28.05.2009. The petitioner has failed to explain reason of inordinate
delay.
9. In the absence of any plausible reason, this Court finds that
present petition suffers from vice of delay and laches. Thus, the petition
deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
10. Dismissed.
( JAGMOHAN BANSAL )
JUDGE
23.04.2024
Ali
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
6 of 6
