Asha Rani vs State Of Haryana And Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 581 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Asha Rani vs State Of Haryana And Others on 7 January, 2025

                                Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:000418




CWP-35342-2024        1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                   AT CHANDIGARH

124                                     CWP-35342-2024
                                        Date of Decision : 07.01.2025

ASHA RANI                                            .... PETITIONER


                                 V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER                         .... RESPONDENTS


CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL


Present :   Mr.Paramjit Kumar, Advocate for
            Mr. B.S.Bajwa, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Mr. Praveen Chander Goyal, 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 direction to the

respondents to consider her appointment with effect from her date of

application and pay interest on delayed payment of family pension.

2. The husband of petitioner expired on 14.10.1998 under

mysterious circumstances. An FIR came to be registered against various

persons including petitioner. Police after completing investigation filed

its report. The trial Court vide judgment dated 19.03.2005 acquitted the

petitioner. The respondent did not extend her benefit of compassionate

appointment and family pension on account of alleged involvement in the

murder of her husband. As she was acquitted by trial Court, the

respondent considered her application for compassionate appointment

1 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:000418

and family pension. The respondent paid her family pension w.e.f. 1998.

She was extended benefit of compassionate appointment and her date of

appointment was 18.01.2006. The petitioner is claiming interest on

delayed payment of family pension as well as her date of appointment to

be 10.02.1999 i.e. date of filing of application seeking compassionate

appointment.

3. Mr.Paramjit Kumar, Advocate submits that the petitioner

was wrongly implicated in a criminal case and thereafter wrongly denied

benefit of family pension as well as compassionate appointment. The

respondent is liable to pay interest on delayed payment of family pension.

The date of appointment of petitioner should be considered as 10.02.1999

instead of 18.01.2006.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Mr. Praveen Chander Goyal, Addl.A.G., Haryana, who on

advance notice is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of

respondent-State and waives service.

6. With the consent of both the parties, the matter is taken up

today itself for final disposal.

7. Mr. Goyal submits that there was no lapse on the part of

respondent. Compassionate appointment is not a matter of vested or

fundamental right. The petitioner was not granted compassionate

appointment on account of her involvement in the murder of her husband.

As soon as she was acquitted by trial Court, she was extended benefit of

family pension as well as compassionate appointment.

8. I have heard the arguments of counsel for the parties and

2 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:000418

perused the record.

9. It is a settled proposition of law that compassionate

appointment is neither a vested nor fundamental right. The said benefit is

extended to prevent the family from being driven to destitution. The

petitioner was not extended benefit of compassionate appointment on

account of her alleged involvement in the murder of her husband. She

was entitled to compassionate appointment on account of service of her

husband. As there was FIR against her, there was no lapse on the part of

respondent in not making her appointment from the date of application.

As soon as she was acquitted, she was granted benefit of compassionate

appointment. There is no reason to extend her benefit of compassionate

appointment from the date of application. There is another facet of the

matter which needs to be considered. She was appointed in January'

2006 whereas instant petition has been filed in 2024. There is no reason

for inordinate delay.

10. The petitioner is further claiming interest on delayed

payment of family pension. She was entitled to family pension from

October' 1998. She was paid family pension in March' 2006. She was

also paid arrears in 2006. She has filed instant petition in 2024 seeking

interest on delayed payment of family pension. She is claiming interest

for the period from 1998 to 2006. There is no reason for inordinate

delay. Right, if any, accrued to the petitioner in 2006 whereas petition

has been filed before this Court in 2024.

11. 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

3 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:000418

CWP-35342-2024 4

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.

12. 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-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

4 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:000418

CWP-35342-2024 5

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

5 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:000418

CWP-35342-2024 6

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."

13. This Court finds no explanation for delay in the instant case.

The dispute has been raised before this Court after a delay of almost 19

years. By way of present petition, the petitioner is attempting to rekindle

lapsed cause of action. The present petition deserves to be dismissed on

the ground of delay and laches and accordingly dismissed.

07.01.2025                                  (JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
anju                                             JUDGE

             Whether speaking/reasoned         : Yes/No
             Whether Reportable                : Yes/No




                                6 of 6