The court emphasized the importance of diligence in law and the fatal nature of indolence to a cause, highlighting that delay and laches disentitle a litigant to any relief.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Bhanot, J.

1. The petitioner at the relevant point in time was working as Junior Accountant in the respondent Corporation.

2. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 06.04.2010 passed by the disciplinary authority, the petitioner was reverted to the pay-scale of Rs. 3285/-per month. The petitioner took the order dated 06.04.2010 in appeal. The appeal of the petitioner was rejected by the competent authority by order dated 15.01.2011.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders dated 06.04.2010 passed by the disciplinary authority and the order dated 15.01.2011 passed by the appellate authority. The aforesaid orders are assailed in the instant writ petition. A further relief to the following effect has been sought for in the instant writ petition:

"iii. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to ensure the payment of salary with all emoluments subsequent upon the quashing of the impugned orders dated 06.04.2010 and 15.01.2011 with interest @ 18% per annum with effect from 06.04.2010 till its actual payment to the petitioner."

4. Ms. Himadri Batra, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 5 raises a preliminary objection that the instant writ petition is barred by delay and laches. The instant writ petition has been instituted after a delay of more than 3 years from the date of the accrual of the cause of action. Learned counsel for the respondent Ms. Himadri Batra relies upon the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Tax No. 1261 of 2018 in the case of P. P. Polyplast (P) Ltd. and another Vs. Union of India and another.

5. Sri P.S. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner in response to the preliminary objection submits that the petitioner had sought review of the order passed by the appellate authority. The review application was submitted by the petitioner on 23.07.2013. The review application was not decided by the appellate authority compelling the petitioner to approach this Court by instituting a writ petition, registered as Writ A No. 8087 of 2014, Krishna Gopal Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and Others. After the dismissal of the aforesaid writ petition by this Court on 12.02.2014, the petitioner instituted the instant writ petition.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. For the purpose of a judgment on the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents, certain relevant facts are established beyond the pale of dispute.

8. The punishment order reverting the petitioner to a lower pay-scale was passed by the disciplinary authority on 06.04.2010. The petitioner took the order of punishment in appeal. The appellate authority rejected the appeal of the petitioner by order dated 15.01.2011. The petitioner claims to have filed a review application on 23.07.2013 seeking review of the order passed by the appellate authority. It is claimed by the petitioner that the appellate authority did not decide the review application. Consequently, the petitioner invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to direct the respondents authority to decide the review application submitted by the petitioner on 23.07.2013. The writ petition so instituted by the petitioner and registered as Writ A No. 8087 of 2014 Krishna Gopal Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and Others, was dismissed by a judgment entered by this court on 12.02.2014. Considering the relevance of the aforesaid judgment, it is extracted hereunder for ease of reference:

"Heard counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel on behalf of respondent No. 1.

By means of this writ petition, the sole prayer made is for a mandamus to respondent No. 2 to consider and decide the review/appeal filed by the petitioner on 23.07.2013 for reviewing the order dated 15.01.2011 passed by respondent No. 2.

From the facts stated in the writ petition, it is clear that the petitioner, who was a Junior Accountant was punished