1. Petitioner challenges termination of contractual employment, seeking relief after significant delay in approaching appellate and writ jurisdictions. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(MP) 123494
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Vivek Rusia, B. P. Sharma, JJ
Laksdeep Kumre – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
WRIT APPEAL No. 3054 of 2025
Important Points
Habitual and significant delays in approaching the court (delay and laches) preclude the entertainment of a challenge against the termination of a contractual appointment, especially when performance was unsatisfactory and no interim relief was granted.
Subject
Service Law - Termination of Contractual Appointment
Headnote
(A) Delay and Laches - Habitual delay in approaching courts - Condonation of delay cannot be granted on a sympathetic approach when the party consistently fails to approach the court in a timely manner. (Para 3)
(B) Contractual Appointment - Termination for unsatisfactory performance - Where termination is based on poor performance and the party has been out of employment for a significant period without interim relief, condoning extreme delays serves no useful purpose. (Para 4)
Issues: Whether the writ appeal should be entertained despite habitual and significant delays in approaching the Commissioner, the Single Bench, and the Division Bench.
(B) Contractual Appointment - Termination for unsatisfactory performance - Where termination is based on poor performance and the party has been out of employment for a significant period without interim relief, condoning extreme delays serves no useful purpose. (Para 4)
Issues: Whether the writ appeal should be entertained despite habitual and significant delays in approaching the Commissioner, the Single Bench, and the Division Bench.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Deepak Kumar Singh
For the Respondents: Rajesh Tiwari
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Deepak Kumar Singh
For the Respondents: Rajesh Tiwari
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner contests terminal order alleging lack of jurisdictional authority, while the respondents emphasize persistent laches and failure to challenge findings regarding unsatisfactory performance. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Court observes that repeated, inexcusable delays at every stage of litigation, coupled with a lack of merit in the underlying termination, preclude judicial intervention. (Para 3 , 4 )
4. Relief under writ jurisdiction is declined where a petitioner repeatedly exhibits laches and fails to demonstrate a sustainable grievance against termination after prolonged periods of inaction. (Para 3 , 4 )
5. The writ appeal is dismissed due to unexplained and persistent delay. (Para 4 )
6. Can judicial intervention be requested in contractual termination matters despite inordinate, recurring delays in litigation?
No. Courts will not condone repetitive delays at every stage of the legal process, especially when the petitioner fails to show merit and has allowed significant time to pass without relief. (Para 3 , 4 )
7. Does a court have discretion to refuse a writ petition on the ground of laches despite contentions of jurisdictional error?
Yes. Where a petitioner displays a habitual pattern of delay and fails to approach authorities within reasonable time, courts may decline to entertain arguments regarding jurisdictional competence due to laches. (Para 4 )
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Rusia
The petitioner/appellant has filed this present writ appeal challenging the order dated 03.07.2023 (Annexure A-1) passed in W.P No.8600/2021, whereby the writ court has dismissed the writ petition.
2. The facts of the case, in short, are as under:-
(i) The petitioner/appellant was appointed on the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak vide order dated 11.07.2014 (Annexure P-3). He was served with the show-cause notice regarding his unsatisfactory performance as well as irregular working. He submitted reply to the show-cause notice, which was not found satisfactory. Vide order dated 24.08.2016 (Annexure P-2) his contractual appointment was terminated under section 16(7) by the Chief Executive Officer, Mandla.
(ii) Being aggrieved by the said order, he approached the Commissioner, by way of appeal, which was filed in the year 2020 with a delay of 2 years (Annexure P-5). The appeal was dismissed vide order dated 01.04.2020 (Annexure P-1) only on the ground of delay. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by way of writ petition in the year 2021, i.e after a period of 4 years. Accordingly, the writ court declined to entertain the writ petition on merit and dismissed the same being barred by limitation. Hence, this writ appeal before this Court.
3. Even in this writ appeal, there is a delay of 2 years. Therefore, the petitioner is in the habit of causing delay in approaching the courts. First, he approached the Commissioner by filing an appeal with delay; he approached the Single Bench with a delay of 4 years and before this Division Bench with a delay of 2 years. In such a situation, every time, the delay cannot be condoned by taking a sympathetic approach.
4. Apart from the above delay, he hardly worked for two years on contractual appointment. His performance and work were not found satisfactory. There was a lack of coordination with Sachiv and Sarpanch in handing over the files and not attending the duties in time; therefore, the show-cause notice was issued, and finally his services were terminated. For 16 years, he has been out of employment. There was no interim order in his favour. The post which fell vacant after his termination must have been filled. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served in condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner as well as in the writ petition and in filing the writ appeal before this Court. Now the issue raised with regard to the order of termination passed by the authority having no jurisdiction cannot be considered on the ground of delay and laches.
Accordingly, this writ appeal is dismissed.
