Aman Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Others
2026 Latest Caselaw 3244 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Aman Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Others on 10 April, 2026

                  128                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                                                             AT CHANDIGARH

                                                                                   CWP-11140-2026
                                                                                   Date of decision: 10.04.2026

                  Aman Kumar                                                                           ....Petitioner

                                                                        Versus
                  State of Haryana and others                                                        ...Respondents

                  CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

                  Present:                       Mr. Sandeep Parkash Chahar, Advocate
                                                 for the petitioner.

                                                 Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Advocate
                                                 for respondents No.2 to 5.

                  HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for

quashing the action of the respondents rejecting the claim of the petitioner for

appointment on the ground of delay and laches vide reply dated 30.01.2026

(Annexure P-14). Further, for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus

directing the respondents to grant appointment to the petitioner as more than 02

acres of land of petitioner's family has been acquired by the respondents along

with all other consequential and attended benefits including payment of arrears

of pay.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the

respondent-State of Haryana issued a notification dated 16.01.2007 under

Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquisition of land for setting

up a thermal power project. The land of the petitioner's family

measuring more than 02 acres was also acquired. The Government of Haryana

NEHA 2026.04.10 14:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

implemented a policy and granting employment to one member of the family

whose 02 acres or more land was acquired. The petitioner's father, uncle and

aunt gave their affidavits on 09.08.2024 and 16.08.2024 stating that they have

no objection if a job is granted to the petitioner in lieu of the acquired land as

discernible from Annexures P-7 to P-9. The petitioner served a legal notice on

27.11.2025 (Annexure P-13). However, the respondents rejected the

petitioner's claim on the ground that the Special Dispensation Scheme has been

closed. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that 341 Class-III

posts and sufficient Class-IV posts are still available for land oustees.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 to 5 submits that

the claim of the petitioner is hopelessly time-barred and that he remained

indolent for a considerable period. The policy was introduced in the year 2007

and as per his own pleadings, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking

appointment under the said policy only in the year 2024, after a gap of 17 years.

This Court has already considered similar delayed claims by land oustees and

dismissed their writ petitions, bearing CWP No.2536 of 2025 titled as Satbir

Vs. HPGCL and others, CWP No.2986 of 2025 titled as Munish Kumar Vs.

SoH and others, CWP No.2987 of 2025 titled as Nitish Vs. SoH and others

and CWP No.3031 of 2025 titled as Raj Kumar Vs. SoH and others.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of

the record of the case with their able assistance, it transpires that the petitioner

approached the respondents seeking employment in the year 2024 in terms of

the policy dated 05.07.2007 as discernible from Annexures P-7 to P-9. The

petitioner remained indolent for a period of 17 years, despite another policy

NEHA 2026.04.10 14:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

announcement made by the Government of Haryana in the year 2014.

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 petitioner has

failed to specify any compelling or extenuating circumstance which prevented

him/her 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 be enforced. In SS 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)

NEHA 2026.04.10 14:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

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. In State of Uttaranchal v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari, (2013)

12 SCC 179, while considering the issue regarding delay and laches and

referring to earlier judgments on the issue, a Two-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court 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. Article 14 of

the Constitution of India, in a situation of that nature, will not be attracted as it

is well settled that law leans in favour of those who are alert and vigilant.

8. In Union of India and others v. M. K. Sarkar, (2010) 2 SCC 59,

the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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

NEHA 2026.04.10 14:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

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 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. In the present case, the Petitioner has approached this Court after a

considerable lapse of time. Repeated representations will not keep the issues

alive and no plausible explanation has been offered by learned counsel for the

petitioner for the delay in filing the present petition.

10. In view of the discussion above, this Court does not find it

appropriate to invoke its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed.

                                                                                (HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
                                                                                      JUDGE
                  10.04.2026
                  Neha


                                                 Whether speaking/reasoned        :     Yes/No
                                                 Whether reportable               :     Yes/No




NEHA
2026.04.10 14:23
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh