[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sohan Singh vs The Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd ... on 23 January, 2026
109 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-1688-2026
Date of decision: 23.01.2026
Sohan Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
The Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Ms. Kiranjeet Kaur, Advocate
for the petitioner.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles
226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of
mandamus directing the respondents to provide/supply the service book record
of the petitioner from the period of 13.07.1988 to 21.01.1992 from the service
stations where the petitioner was posted during his service.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the
petitioner joined the respondent-Corporation as a work charge Gardener on
13.07.1988 in District Fazilka. He was transferred to various other sub-
divisions in the year 1990-1991. The respondent-Corporation is the custodian
of the service record of its employees. On 21.01.1992, the petitioner was
relieved from Fazilka and joined at Sub-Urban Division, Ferozepur but his
service book was not transferred and remained at Fazilka. The petitioner
retired as Junior Engineer on 01.07.2015. He was denied advance promotional
increments after 23 years of service due to absence of service record from
1 of 4
1988-1992. The petitioner made a representation on 26.07.2021 but no action
has been taken followed by a legal notice dated 06.11.2025 (Annexure P-1) to
which the respondents replied on 02.12.2025 (Annexure P-3) admitting that the
record for the period in question is not available being old record and rather
asking the petitioner to provide proof of his service.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusal of
the paper book, it transpires that petitioner is seeking the service record for the
period 13.07.1988 to 21.01.1992. There is no dispute with regard to the
respondent-Corporation being custodian of the service record of the petitioner.
However, petitioner retired on 01.07.2015 and approached this Court after ten
years of his retirement seeking the service record.
4. 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 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
2 of 4
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)
5. 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.
6. 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
3 of 4
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.
7. 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
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.
8. 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.
9. 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
23.01.2026
Neha Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
