Santosh Kumar Kaushal vs STATE BANK OF INDIA - 2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2450

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Service Law - Promotion and Seniority - Doctrine of Delay and Laches - A belated service-related claim is typically rejected on the grounds of delay and laches. Where the claim involves issues relating to seniority or promotion affecting others, the claim is rendered stale, and the doctrine of laches/limitation applies, as reopening such issues would disturb the settled rights of third parties and create administrative complications (Paras 6, 7).

(B) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Discretionary Jurisdiction - The power of a High Court to issue writs is discretionary. Relief may be refused if the petitioner is guilty of inordinate, unexplained delay, or has slept over their rights, as the court does not ordinarily assist the tardy or indolent (Para 8).

(C) Service Law - Reservation - Right to reservation is an enabling provision and not a fundamental right; consequently, the non-grant of reservation benefits does not exempt a petitioner from the applicability of the doctrine of delay and laches in challenging belated service claims (Para 11).

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, appointed as a probationary officer in 1983 and confirmed as a Junior Management Grade Scale-I officer in 1985, filed a writ petition in 2017. The petitioner challenged the non-grant of promotion to Middle Management Grade Scale-II for the period from 1990 to October 1998, and sought consequential promotions and benefits for various subsequent grades dating back to 1990. The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding delay and laches, while the petitioner contended that since the claim involved reservation benefits, it concerned a violation of fundamental rights and should not be barred by delay.

Findings of Court:
The petition is a case of clever drafting attempting to create a cause of action where none exists. The claim for promotion from 1990, filed in 2017, is highly belated and would affect the settled seniority and promotions of other employees in the cadre who were not impleaded. The plea that reservation is a fundamental right is rejected.

Issues: Whether a highly belated claim for retrospective promotion, filed decades after the cause of action, can be entertained under the discretionary jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and whether the claim for reservation benefits overrides the doctrine of delay and laches.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that claims regarding promotion and seniority that affect third parties are barred by delay and laches to prevent administrative chaos and protect settled rights. Relief under Article 226 is discretionary and not available to those who fail to approach the court promptly. Furthermore, reservation being an enabling provision rather than a fundamental right cannot be used to bypass the bar of laches for stale claims.

Result: Petition dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Challenge to delayed promotion from 1990-1998 – Writ petition filed belatedly dismissed on ground of delay and laches. (Para 2 )

2. Respondent argued delay and laches; petitioner contended fundamental right to reservation violated, thus delay inapplicable. (Para 5 , 6 )

3. Writ petition dismissed on ground of delay and laches; pending applications disposed. (Para 12 )

4. What is the principle regarding delay and laches in service promotion claims affecting others?

Belated claims for promotion that affect settled rights of third parties are dismissed due to delay and laches; stale claims are not entertained. (Para 7 , 8 , 10 )

5. Does the continuing wrong exception apply to promotion claims?

No, because reopening promotion issues would affect settled rights of third parties, so the doctrine of laches applies. (Para 6 , 7 )

6. Is the right to reservation a fundamental right that overcomes delay in filing?

No, the right to reservation is an enabling provision, not a fundamental right, so delay and laches apply. (Para 11 )

7. What is the reasonable period to challenge a seniority list in service matters?

Three to four years is a reasonable period; any challenge beyond requires satisfactory explanation. (Para 9 )

Bipin Chander Negi, Judge:

The petitioner in the case at hand was initially appointed as a Probationary Officer on 19.12.1983. Post completion of the two year probation, the petitioner was Hconfirmed as a Junior Management Grade Scale-I on 9.12.1985.

2. By way of the present petition, filed on 21.01.2017, a challenge is sought to be made to the non-grant of promotion of the petitioner against the post of Middle Management Grade Scale-II from Junior Management Grade Scale-I for the period year 1990 till October 1998. The promotion to the Middle Management Grade Scale-II was allowed in favour of the petitioner on 01.11.1998. Thereafter, Middle Management Grade Scale-III was granted to the petitioner w.e.f. 3.9.2005 and subsequent thereto promotion to Middle Management Grade Scale-IV was made on 12.9.2013.

3. Aggrieved by the delayed promotion made in the year 1998, admittedly, petitioner represented his case before the National Commission of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. The repruesentation was made in this respect on 20.4.1999 (Anonexure P-19). The information with respect to ACRs wC.e.f. 1.4.1992 to 31.3.2008 was solicited by the petitioner in August/September, 2010(Annexure P-22).

4. It is in the aforesaid backdrop, following prayer has been made in the writ petition:-

“That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be

issued directing the respondents to consider the

candidature to the petitioner for promotion from the post of

Junior Management Grade Scale-I to the post of Middle

Management Grade Scale-II in the year 1990 1.8.1990,

Middle Management w.e.f. Grade Scale-III from Middle

Management Grade Scale-II w.e.f. 1.11.1993, the Senior

Management Grade Scale-IV from Middle Management

Grade Scale-III w.e.f. 1.11.1997, Senior Management

Grade Scale-V from Senior Management Scale-IV w.e.f.

1.11.2001, Top Executive Grade Grade Scale-VI from

Senior Management Grade Scale-V w.e.f. 29.8.2005, Top

Executive Grade Scale-VII from Top Executive Grade

Scale-VI w.e.f. 23.7.2009, Top Executive Grade Special

Scale-I from Top Executive Grade Scale-VII w.e.f. 3.9.2013

and Top Executive Grade Special Scale-II from Top

Executive Grade Special Scale-I w.e.f. 23.4.2014

alongwith all consequential benefits of due and

admissible pay and allowan ces alongwith due and

admissible arrears with due and admissible interest, in the interest of justice.”

5. In the aforesaidt backdrop, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents has raised preliminary objections with respect to delay and laches in filing of the present petition. It is vehemently contended that the claim involved relates to the issue of promotion, affecting others. Besides the petition raises a highly belated service related claim. Hence delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches/limitation will be applicable. Per contra it is contended that the petitioner belongs to a reserved category and since benefit of reservation has not been granted to the petitioner therefore his fundamental right has been affected and therefore there arises no occasion for invocation of delay and laches in the case at hand.

6. To buttress the aforesaid submission learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to (2023) 20 SCC 817, titled as, State of Uttar Pradesh & others vs. Rajmati Singh. The relevant extract thereof reads as follows:-

“18. In “ Union of India and Ors. vs. Tarsem Singh ” (2008) 8 SCC 652, this Court summarized the settled principles in the following manner:

“7. To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (w here remedy is sought is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the con

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2450

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICEHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN CHANDER NEGI
Santosh Kumar Kaushal – Appellant
Versus
STATE BANK OF INDIA – Respondent
CWP/208/2017

Belated claims for promotion and seniority affecting third-party rights are barred by the doctrine of delay and laches. The right to reservation is an enabling provision, not a fundamental right, and therefore does not excuse inordinate delay in seeking discretionary relief under Article 226.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. What is the principle regarding delay and laches in service promotion claims affecting others?

5. Does the continuing wrong exception apply to promotion claims?

6. Is the right to reservation a fundamental right that overcomes delay in filing?

7. What is the reasonable period to challenge a seniority list in service matters?

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2450

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLAHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICEHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN CHANDER NEGISantosh Kumar Kaushal – AppellantVersusSTATE BANK OF INDIA – RespondentCWP/208/2017

Belated claims for promotion and seniority affecting third-party rights are barred by the doctrine of delay and laches. The right to reservation is an enabling provision, not a fundamental right, and therefore does not excuse inordinate delay in seeking discretionary relief under Article 226.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. What is the principle regarding delay and laches in service promotion claims affecting others?

5. Does the continuing wrong exception apply to promotion claims?

6. Is the right to reservation a fundamental right that overcomes delay in filing?

7. What is the reasonable period to challenge a seniority list in service matters?

Cases Referred (6)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICEHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN CHANDER NEGI
Santosh Kumar Kaushal – Appellant
Versus
STATE BANK OF INDIA – Respondent
CWP/208/2017