Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
MANMOHAN, NAVIN CHAWLA
Arvind Kumar Chaubey – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. seeking implementation of prior directives on pay fixation (Para 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding the timeliness of the petition (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's view on delay and laches in legal claims (Para 5) |
| 4. dismissal of the writ petition based on delay (Para 6 , 7) |
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J. (Oral)--The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.
2. Present writ petition has been filed seeking implementation of the directions stipulated in the Order dated 14th March, 1978 issued by Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, Government of India for fixation of pay of the petitioners from the date of approval of promotion for the next higher grade i.e. the date of declaration of the result for the next higher grade pay. Petitioners also seek quashing of the communication dated 28th September, 2016 vide which the Petitioners were held disentitled from the benefit of ACP/MACP and the benefit of next pay grade from the date of reporting for training.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the issue in the present writ petition is that the petitioner's pay as HC/RM was fixed by the department w.e.f. 10th November, 1994 i.e., date of posting to the higher
Legal rights in writ petitions are barred by delay and laches, emphasizing the principle that 'delay defeats equity' and requiring diligence in asserting claims.
The court established that inordinate delay in seeking legal remedy, especially in service-related claims, can bar relief, and that the doctrine of delay and laches is a critical consideration in the....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
