IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:15.12.2025 Tarlok Chand ….Petitioner vs.

State of Haryana and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present: Mr. G.S.Bajwa, Advocate (through VC)

for the petitioner Mr. Ashok Kumar Khubbar, Addl. A.G., Haryana ***

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 19.09.2018 (Annexure P-5) whereby his claim has been rejected on the ground that regional record is not available.

2. The petitioner joined as Primary School Teacher in State of Punjab. He joined Education Department of State of Haryana on 28.08.1983. He superannuated on 30.04.2010. He vide letter dated 09.06.2017 requested respondent to count his past service for retiral benefits. He filed CWP- 22190-2017 before this Court which was disposed of with a direction to respondent to decide his legal notice. The respondent vide order dated 19.09.2018 rejected his claim. He again filed representation on 18.10.2024 seeking details of his past service rendered with State of Punjab.

3. This is second round of litigation. On the earlier occasion, the petitioner preferred CWP No. 22190 of 2017 which was disposed of vide order dated 27.09.2017 with a direction to respondent to pass a speaking order. The respondent passed speaking order on 19.09.2018. The present writ petition is filed in 2025.

4. On being asked reason for inordinate delay especially when impugned order was passed on the direction of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has recurring cause, thus, writ petition is maintainable.

5. No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down as to when the High Court should refuse to exercise its jurisdiction in favour of a party who moves it after considerable delay and is otherwise guilty of laches. Discretion must be exercised judiciously and reasonably. In the event that the claim made by the applicant is legally sustainable, delay should be condoned. Where illegality is manifest, cannot be sustained on the sole ground of laches. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. State cannot deprive vested right because of a non-deliberate delay.

6. A two Judge Bench of Supreme Court recently in ‘Mrinmoy Maity Vs. Chhanda Koley and others’ 2024 SCC OnLine SC 551 has held that High Court ought to dismiss petition on the ground of delay and laches where there is no explanation of delay. An applicant who approaches the Court belatedly or in the other words sleeps over his rights for a considerable period ought not to be granted the extraordinary relief by writ Courts. Delay defeats equity. High Court may refuse to invoke its writ jurisdiction if laxity on the part of applicant has allowed the cause of action to drift away and attempts are made to rekindle the lapsed cause of action. Multiple communications cannot create cause of action. The relevant extracts of the judgment are reproduced as below:

“9. Having heard rival contentions raised and on perusal of the facts obtained in the present case, we are of the considered view that writ petitioner ought to have been non-suited or in other words writ petition ought to have been dismissed on the ground of delay and latches itself. An applicant who approaches the court belatedly or in other words sleeps over his rights for a considerable period of time, wakes up from his deep slumber ought not to be granted the extraordinary relief by the writ courts. This Court time and again has held that delay defeats equity. Delay or latches is one of the factors which should be born in mind by the High Court while exercising discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a given case, the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if laxity on the part of the applicant to assert his right has