Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dinesh Kumar vs The Zonal Manager And Others on 2 May, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:060395
CWP-9986-2024 1 2024:PHHC:060395
133
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-9986-2024
Date of Decision:02.05.2024
DINESH KUMAR ......... Petitioner
Versus
THE ZONAL MANAGER AND OTHERS ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present : Mr. S.K. Daaria, Advocate
for the petitioner.
****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles
226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of decision of
respondent to discontinue his service. He is further seeking direction to
respondent to reinstate him.
2. The petitioner claims that from 01.05.2000 to March' 2021,
he worked with respondent as part time Sweeper. He was getting
Rs.475/- per day. The respondent abruptly in March' 2021 discontinued
his service. He was not served with any notice or order and is simply
asked not to come to Bank.
3. The petitioner concededly was working as Daily wage
worker with respondent. His services were discontinued in March' 2021
and he opted to remain indolent till March' 2024 and at this belated stage,
he has filed present writ petition.
4. On being asked, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:060395
CWP-9986-2024 2 2024:PHHC:060395
that petitioner belongs to poor strata of the society, thus, question of
delay may be ignored.
5. 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.
6. 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 considerable 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-
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:060395
CWP-9986-2024 3 2024:PHHC:060395
suited or in other words writ petition ought to have been
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
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:060395
CWP-9986-2024 4 2024:PHHC:060395
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."
7. In case in hand, the petitioner was daily wage worker and he
was not appointed against a regular or sanctioned post. Thus, he does not
have vested or fundamental right to claim continuity of service. His
services as claimed by him were discontinued in March' 2021 and by
present petition, he is trying to revive a right which has already lapsed.
8. In the wake of aforesaid findings and judgment of Supreme
Court in Mrinmoy Maity (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion
that present petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.
( JAGMOHAN BANSAL )
JUDGE
02.05.2024
Ali
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
