JUDGMENT :

Deepak Gupta, J.

By way of this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus by directing the respondents to consider the work-charge period from 03.09.1969 to 03.08.1976 as work-charge Lineman with regular service till 30.11.2024 for the benefit of pension/ gratuity.

2. It is contended by learned counsel that the petitioner was appointed as Work Charge Lineman in the Office of Punjab State Electricity Board at Tarn Taran in the year 1969. He remained in service as Work Charge Lineman without any revision in pay. He was regularised in 1976 and remained in service till 2004 without any break and ultimately, retired in 2004. The grievance of the petitioner is that his work charge period has not been counted in the regular period. He also made repeated representations dated 20.01.2000 (Annexure P.1), 01.10.2013 (Annexure P.2), 14.09.2023 (Annexure P.3) and 10.08.2024 (Annexure P.4) but with no response.

3. On advance notice, Mr. Rajesh Sehgal, Addl. AG, Punjab, appears on behalf of the respondent- State. Ms. Sehaj Sandhawalia, Advocate, appears on behalf of respondents No.2 to 4.

4. Matter is taken up today itself for final hearing with consent of both the sides.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have appraised the paper book.

6. As is evident from the paper book, petitioner had retired way back in 2004. He is presently 78 years of age. He has approached this Court by way of the present petition in 2024 i.e. after more than 20 years of his retirement for seeking the benefit of counting of his work-charge period in the regular service.

7. Thus, petition is evidently hit by the principles of long delay and latches. For filing of a writ petition under Articles 226 of the Indian Constitution, there is no strict statute of limitation. However, this does not mean that delays are entirely overlooked. The courts apply the principles of delay and laches to determine the reasonableness of the delay in filing such a petition. In this regard, courts have significant discretion to decide whether a delay is unreasonable. They consider factors such as the justification for the delay, potential prejudice to the opposing party, and the public interest involved. Delays are more likely to be overlooked if the issue pertains to public interest or affects a large number of people. If the delay is deemed unreasonable and causes prejudice to the other party, or if the petitioner has acquiesced to the situation, the court may dismiss the petition.

8. In P.S. Sadasivaswamy vs The State Of Tamil Nadu AIR 1974 SC 2271, Hon'ble Supreme Court, observed as under:

"A person aggrieved by an order of promoting a junior over his bead should approach the Court at least within six months or at the most a year of such promotion. It is not that 'here is any period of limitation for the Courts to exercise their powers under Article 226 nor is it that there can never be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in a matter after the passage of a certain length of time. But it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the Courts to refuse to exercise their extraordinary powers under Article 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the Court to put forward stale claims and try to unsettle settled matters. The petitioner's petition should, therefore have been dismissed in limine. Entertaining such petitions is a waste of time of the court. It clogs the work of the Court and impedes the work of the court in considering legitimate grievances as also its normal work. We consider that the High court was right in dismissing the appellant's petition as well as the appeal."

9. Hon'ble Supreme Court has recently held in Mrinmoy Maity Vs. Chhanda Koley and others, 2024 SCC Online SC 551, as under:-

"9. Having heard rival contentions raised and on perusal of the facts