[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tarlok Chand vs State Of Haryana And Others on 15 December, 2025
CWP No. 34744 of 2025 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 34744 of 2025
Date of Decision:15.12.2025
Tarlok Chand
....Petitioner
vs.
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present: Mr. G.S.Bajwa, Advocate (through VC)
for the petitioner
Mr. Ashok Kumar Khubbar, Addl. A.G., Haryana
***
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of
the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 19.09.2018
(Annexure P-5) whereby his claim has been rejected on the ground that
regional record is not available.
2. The petitioner joined as Primary School Teacher in State of
Punjab. He joined Education Department of State of Haryana on 28.08.1983.
He superannuated on 30.04.2010. He vide letter dated 09.06.2017 requested
respondent to count his past service for retiral benefits. He filed CWP-
22190-2017 before this Court which was disposed of with a direction to
respondent to decide his legal notice. The respondent vide order dated
19.09.2018 rejected his claim. He again filed representation on 18.10.2024
seeking details of his past service rendered with State of Punjab.
1 of 6
3. This is second round of litigation. On the earlier occasion, the
petitioner preferred CWP No. 22190 of 2017 which was disposed of vide
order dated 27.09.2017 with a direction to respondent to pass a speaking
order. The respondent passed speaking order on 19.09.2018. The present
writ petition is filed in 2025.
4. On being asked reason for inordinate delay especially when
impugned order was passed on the direction of this Court, learned counsel
for the petitioner submits that petitioner has recurring cause, thus, writ
petition is maintainable.
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, 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
2 of 6
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 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.
3 of 6
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 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. The petitioner claims that his cause is recurring in nature, thus,
writ is maintainable. There is no question of delay. A Division Bench of this
Court vide judgment dated 04.04.2018 in Kartar Singh v. Managing
Director, HVPNL and others, CWP No.26962 of 2015, after noticing
various judgments of Apex Court has dismissed similar contention.
8. A Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.05.2015
in Sandeep Kharab v. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 5965 of
2011; order dated 04.09.2012 in Bal Krishan v. State of Punjab and
others, CWP No.18498 of 2011 and order dated 29.11.2012 in Tarsem Pal
v. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others, CWP No.13965
of 2010 has dismissed petitions on the ground that writ jurisdiction cannot
be invoked at the will and convenience of the litigant. Anyone who claims
4 of 6
rights must be vigilant and he must enforce his rights within reasonable
time.
9. This court has noticed that employees, with respect to cause of
action which arose during their service period, are filing petitions after their
retirement and sometimes after so many years from the date of retirement.
As soon as an employee retires, employee-employer relation snaps. It is
normally pleaded that employee-employer relation on account of retirement
has snapped, thus, no departmental action can be taken. There are service
rules providing that no departmental action, after 4-5 years from the date of
retirement or with respect to cause of action which arose 4-5 years prior to
date of retirement, would be taken. Only object of these rules is to end the
litigation. Object of principles of delay, laches and acquiescence is to put
litigation to rest. The rights and liabilities of parties must settle at a
particular point of time. Normally, limitation to file civil suit is 3 years. No
specific period for approaching the Court under article 226 has been
prescribed. Taking advantage of said fact, the retired employees are
approaching this Court as and when they feel convenient. There is no Court
fee and they have sufficient time to pursue the matter. The Courts are already
inundated and many urgent matters are not adverted to. This court is not
oblivious of the fact that on the ground of huge pendency doors of this court
cannot be closed for any litigant, however, there is need to maintain balance
and take care of interest of all the litigants in the light of limited time and
resources.
10. There is no explanation for delay and as per the petitioner, he
can approach Court at any point of time because he has a recurring cause.
The petitioner by his act and conduct acquiesced action of the respondent
5 of 6
and at this belated stage he wants to make hay while the Sun shines. Case of
the petitioner is badly hit by doctrine of delay and laches.
11. In the wake of above-cited judgments and considering
inordinate delay on the part of petitioner, this Court does not find it
appropriate to invoke its extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction. The present
petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
15.12.2025
paramjit
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: Yes
6 of 6
