Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge

(Oral)By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:-

“That the respondents may kindly be directed grant promotion to the petitioner as Senior Executive Officer on notional with all consequential benefits when the same fell due in favour of the petitioner by issuing of mandamus.”

2. A perusal of the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the petition demonstrates that the petitioner is 59 years old. This means that the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the relief of promotion after she superannuated from service. As per averments made in the petition she retired on 31.07.2024. Thereafter, promotions have been effected on 01.05.2025 in terms of Annexure P-4.

3. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 10898 of 2025, titled as State of KeHrala and others vs. Krishanan N.V., decided on 19.08.2025, in the case of a person who had approached the Court seeking promotion retrospectively after he had superannuated has held as under:-

“(7) After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find that the claim made by the respondent was highly belated as the OA itself was filed by the respondent in the year 2019, i.e. more than 11 years after he had retired from service on 31.01.2008. The petitioner had filed the OA seeking the benefit of promotions and arrears of pay and allowances as had been granted to his juniors during the course of his employment, ignoring his claim.

(8) Whether repeated representations can justify delay and laches in approaching the Tribunal/court? The law on this issue is well settled. Reference can be made to the judgment of this Court in State of U.P. v. Rajmati Singh, whereby dealing with the issue of delay and laches, it was held as under:

"12. In our considered view, the respondent like any vigilant citizen, especially given that she does not belong to economically or socially backward segments of the society, was expected to assert her rights before an appropriate forum within a reasonable time. Repeated representations neither give rise nor revive the cause of action, if it had already arisen in the past. The respondent's difficulties do not end there, given that her services were brought to an end when she was denied to resume her duties in the year 1974. She was, thus, required to seek a declaration of her continuity or have a writ of mandamus issued for her reinstatement. She did not do either."

(9) Further reliance is placed on the judgment passed by this Court in State of Orissa vs. Laxmi Narayan Das'. It has been opined therein as under:

"16. ... Be it noted, de lay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant "a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, "procrastination is the greatest thief of time" and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis. court is not expected to give indulgence to such indolent persons who compete with 'Kumbhakarna' or for that matter 'Rip Van Winkle'. In our considered opinion, such delay does not deserve any indulgence and on the said ground alone the writ court should have thrown the petition overboard at the very threshold."

(10) For the reasons mentioned above, the order passed by the Tribunal as well as the High Court cannot be sustained The OA and the Writ Petition filed by the respondent deserve to be dismissed on account of huge delay in availing the remedy for redressal of his grievance.

(11) The Civil Appeal is accordingly allowed. The impugned orders passed by the High Court as well as the Tribunal are set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.”

4. Before Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioner was aggrieved by the benefits given to his juniors while th