IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 29.01.2026 Inspector (Retd.) Sarup Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present: - Mr. Raywant Kaushish, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Aman Dhir, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab ***

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of seniority lists dated 30.06.2009 of Assistant Sub-Inspectors, dated nil of Sub-Inspectors, 28.01.2015 of Inspectors and order dated 08.02.2023 to the extent of denial of seniority and consequential promotion to him.

2. The petitioner was recruited as Constable in Punjab Police on 19.07.1976. He was promoted as Head Constable on 11.12.1981. He was promoted as Assistant Sub-Inspector on 19.07.1996 and Sub-Inspector in 2010. He was promoted as Inspector on 05.01.2013. This Court vide judgment dated 16.12.2014 passed in CWP No.4829 of 2011, SI Pardeep Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others directed the respondent- State to prepare joint seniority list of District Police and Armed Police. The respondent on 25.12.2016 granted charge of Deputy Superintendent of Police to 30 Inspectors who were juniors to him. The petitioner superannuated on 31.05.2017. He preferred CWP No.19155 of 2022 before this Court which was disposed of with a direction to respondents to address his legal notice dated 13.04.2017. The respondent in compliance of order of this Court passed order dated 08.02.2023 whereby claim of the petitioner was rejected.

3. The impugned order was passed in February’ 2023 and instant petition has been filed in January’ 2026. The petitioner, on the earlier occasion, approached this Court in 2022, thus, he is well aware of Court process.

4. On being asked reason of delay, learned counsel for the petitioner could not advance any plausible reason for inordinate delay in approaching this Court.

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, the claim made by the applicant is legally sustainable, delay should be condoned. Where illegality is manifest, it 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 v. 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 nonsuited 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 on