The discretionary nature of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India requires prompt approach to the court, and unexplained delay and latches could be a basis to refuse to exercise discretionary jurisdiction, particularly for employees in higher positions.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard.

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 20.09.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge by which petitioner's writ petition was dismissed on the ground of latches.

3. The order of the learned Single Judge shows that learned Single Judge was not inclined to exercise his discretionary jurisdiction in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India because the appellant had approached the writ court by filling petition after 15 years and that too, without giving any explanation whatsoever as to why he could not approach the court for almost one and a half decades.

4. Though, the order of learned Single Judge does not show that any other contention was raised before the learned Single Judge, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, at the appellate stage, has sought to raise an issue that the order against which the writ petition was filed gave a recurring cause of action because the effect of the order was that in times to come, the appellant's benefit in terms of increments and all other benefits to which he would have been entitled, but for the impugned order, would have continued in his entire service. For this purpose, he has placed reliance upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh And Others, (2020) Vol.2 Supreme Court Cases 569, Vetindia Pharmaceuticals Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh And Another, (2021) Vol.1 Supreme Court Cases 804 and Tukaram Kana Joshi And Others through Power-of-Attorney Holder v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation And Others, (2013) Vol.1 Supreme Court Cases 353.

5. On the strength of the aforesaid judgments, learned counsel would argue that it is not a rule of thumb that in every case where petition suffers from delay and latches, writ remedy has to be necessarily declined. He would submit that where third party interest is not involved and the nature of injustice to which a person has been subjected over-weighs delay, matter ought to be examined on merits rather than dismissing the petition on the ground of delay.

6. Another submission made before this court is that the appellant has a very good case on merits as the impugned order suffers from violation of principles of natural justice, discrimination and the appellant having very strong case on merits in view of the law laid down by this Court in the cases of Kailsah Chand Sethi Verus State of Rajasthan And Others, 1993 (3) Western Law Cases (Raj.) 188, Mohan Lal Meena, deceased through L.Rs. v. State of Raj. & Anr., 1996 (1) RLR 479 and Mohan Lal Bairwa v. The State of Rajasthan and Others, for additional reasons, learned Single Judge instead of throwing the petition on the ground of delay and latches ought to have entertained the same on merits ignoring delay.

7. We find that most of the arguments which have been advanced before this Court were not raised before the learned Single Judge because it is not reflected from the order of the learned Single Judge.

8. The appellant while working as a librarian, suffered an order when on account of unauthorized absence, an order was passed on 03.06.2006 by which period of service from 12.02.2004 to 10.03.2004 and 04.06.2004 to 04.12.2005 was omitted from the service period and he was held not entitled to payment of salary for that period. The appellant was not a rustic villager, nor an illiterate. He was working as a librarian. The order had an impact on his service because it amounted to break the service. The appellant chose not to challenge this order for long until he woke-up from slumber and filed a petition before this court after about a decade and half. In the writ petition, as we see and it has also been noticed by the learned Single Judge that no explanation whatsoever was given as to why appellant could not file petition for such a long period. Present is not a case where the appellant was altogether dismissed from service or deprived of his source of livelihood. The effect