Point of Law : Doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction.

ORDER :

Rajesh Bindal, CJ.

1. The present intra-court appeal has been filed against the order dated July 7, 2021 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. The appellant had approached this Court by filing the writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the appeal dated December 30, 1995 filed by her late husband, who was dismissed from service. The writ petition was dismissed on account of delay and laches.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant is an illiterate lady. Late husband of the appellant was dismissed from service illegally merely on account of unauthorised absence. The family is practically starving. The only prayer made before the learned Single Judge was for disposal of statutory appeal filed by her late husband. The prayer being innocuous, interference of this Court was required as the appellate authority had failed to discharge its duty.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, we do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge shows that the late husband of the appellant was dismissed from service on account of his unauthorised absence of over 678 days, vide order dated December 21, 1990. The appeal was stated to have been filed against the order of dismissal more than 5 years thereafter on December 30, 1995 in case the same was filed at that time. There is nothing on record to show that the appeal was ever pursued by the late husband of the appellant till such time he was alive. The case of the appellant is that her husband died in the year 1999. It is also apparent from the record that the representation dated December 05, 1999 was filed by the appellant to the then Chief Minister of the State which was followed by another representation dated August 08, 2018. The aforesaid facts also, even if taken on their face value, show that late husband of the appellant and the appellant herself were moving at their own sweet will and not pursuing the remedy available to them at the relevant time. Firstly, there was huge delay in filing of appeal in case it was filed and secondly keeping mum for a period of about 25 years before this Court was approached.

4. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on account of delay and laches.

5. Different facets of issue regarding delay and laches in filing the petition had been subject matter of consideration before Hon'ble the Supreme Court on number of occasions, wherein it has been consistently opined that the party can be denied relief if he sleeps over the matter.

6. In State of Uttaranchal and another v. Sri Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari and others, 2013 (6) SLR 629 Hon'ble the Supreme Court, while considering the issue regarding delay and laches and referring to earlier judgments on the issue, opined that repeated representations made will not keep the issues alive. A stale or a dead issue/dispute cannot be got revived even if such a representation has either been decided by the authority or got decided by getting a direction from the court as the issue regarding delay and laches is to be decided with reference to original cause of action and not with reference to any such order passed. Delay and laches on the part of a government servant may even deprive him of the benefit which had been given to others. Article 14 of the Constitution of India, in a situation of that nature, will not be attracted as it is well known that law leans in favour of those who are alert and vigilant. Even equality has to be claimed at the right juncture and not on expiry of reasonable time. Even if there is no period prescribed for filing the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, yet it should be filed within a reasonable time. Such an order promoting a junior should normally be challenged within a period of six months or at the most in a year of such