JUDGMENT :

Ajay Bhanot, J.

1. The father of the petitioner namely Sri Nemi Chand was working as Junior Clerk in the District Institute of Education and Training (D.I.E.T.), Mahamaya Nagar. Father of the petitioner died-in-harness on 01.01.2009. The petitioner moved an application for appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules before the respondent no. 1/respondent no.3 on 03.07.2009. The petitioner submitted further applications for appointment under the compassionate ground on 06.07.2009 and on 24.09.2011 with the prescribed proforma and testimonials of his educational qualifications.

2. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs in the instant writ petition:

“i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to give an appointment on a Class III post in the office of respondent no. 3 under the Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.

ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to pass appropriate order on the representation of the petitioner submitted by him.”

3. The petitioner instituted the writ petition on 30.11.2014 for a cause of action which admittedly arose in the year 2009.

4. Sri Anil Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authority has not decided the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds. The application was moved within time. The petitioner cannot be penalized for a default on part of the respondent.

5. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that writ petition is barred by delay and laches on the part of the petitioner. The delay is not liable to be condoned. The immediate financial crisis, if any, occasioned by the death of the father of the petitioner, does not exist any longer. No cause of action survives at this stage. Hence the provisions of Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 are not applicable to the case of the petitioner and he is not entitled to claim appointment on compassionate grounds.

6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

7. Certain facts relevant for the judgment are established beyond the pale of dispute.

8. The father of the petitioner Late Nemi Chand was working as Junior Clerk in the District Institute of Education and Training (D.I.E.T.), Mahamaya Nagar and committed suicide by hanging himself from the ceiling fan inside the room of the Chaukidar in the D.I.E.T. on 01.01.2009. A letter dated 20.01.2009 submitted by the petitioner to medical authority contains a recital of fact that the father of the petitioner committed suicide in the premises of DIET, Mahamaya Nagar.

9. The petitioner had made a representation for grant of compassionate appointment on ground on 03.07.2009, on 06.07.2009 and finally on 24.09.2011. The respondent authorities did not act upon his claim and failed to appoint him under the Dying-in-Harness Rules. The petitioner was silent on the inaction of the respondents for the past 5 years. What is fatal to the maintainability of the writ petition is the failure of the petitioner to approach this court within time. 5 years is a long time. The delay on part of the petitioner has not been explained in the writ petition. The conduct of the petitioner shows that he was not diligent in asserting his rights. The courts have consistently declined relief to litigants who are not vigilant about their rights and fail to approach the court in time. The laches and the delay on part of the petitioner cannot be condoned on the foot of the subsequent representations filed by the petitioner asserting his claim in the later part of 2009 and in 2011.

10. It would be apposite to reinforce the narrative with good authority.

11. The courts are required by law to apply their mind to the question and consequences of delay and laches and enter a finding thereon, before exercising their discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

12. The courts have consistently observed that delay and laches on p