SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 1738

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SHANKAR PAL – Appellant
Versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION CHANDIGARH – Respondent



##PAGE1##

CWP No. 3116 of 2026 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CWP No. 3116 of 2026

Date of Decision:04.02.2026

Shankar Pal

….Petitioner

vs.

Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh and others

….Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present: Mr. Jagdeep Jaswal, Advocate

for the petitioner

Mr. Ritesh Watts, Advocate for

Mr. M.S.Batth, Advocate

for the respondents

***

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioners through instant petition under Articles 226/227

of the Constitution of India is seeking direction to respondents to regularize

him as per policy dated 13.03.2015 framed by Chandigarh Administration

and followed by Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh.

2. The petitioner retired on 31.08.2025. He is claiming

regularization on the basis of judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others. vs. Umadevi & Others, (2006) 4

SCC 1 and Chandigarh Administration and another vs. Sampat Singh and

others, Civil Appeal No. 6779 of 2009. He is further claiming that Municipal

1 of 5

::: Downloaded on - 11-02-2026 05:49:57 :::

##PAGE2##

CWP No. 3116 of 2026 -2-

Corporation has adopted regularization policy dated 13.03.2015 of

Chandigarh Administration.

3. The petitioner remained in service for more than 10 years after

passing of aforesaid judgments and policy framed by U.T. Administration.

He has already retired. He is claiming regularization after retirement on the

basis of aforesaid judgments as well as policy of Chandigarh Administration.

4. 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.

5. A two Judge Bench of Supreme Court recently inMrinmoy

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

2 of 5

::: Downloaded on - 11-02-2026 05:49:57 :::

##PAGE3##

CWP No. 3116 of 2026 -3-

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 allowed the

cause of action to drift away and attempts are made

subsequently to rekindle the lapsed cause of action.

10. The discretion to be exercised would be with care

a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top