[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
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
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vs The State of Punjab and others, was dismissed as withdrawn on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
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
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
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
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
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
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
