202 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 10.02.2026 OMKAR ... APPELLANT VS.

UNION OF INDIA & ANR .. RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR Present: Mr. Randeep Punia, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sammi, Advocate, for the respondent(s)-UOI.

****

ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA , J. (ORAL)

The matter was adjourned on 27.10.2025 by passing the following order:-

“It is informed that learned counsel, who appeared for the appellant, has joined the office of Advocate General for the State of Haryana.

Let notice be issued to the appellant for 10.02.2026.”

Today again, a request was made for adjournment on the same ground. We are not inclined to accept the request for adjournment in the peculiar facts of the case. Though, vakalatnama has not been filed by Mr. Randeep Punia, Advocate, since he has appeared for the appellant, we have perused the material on record with his assistance.

This appeal arises out of judgment dated 23.05.2018 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby appellant's writ was dismissed primarily on the ground of latches.

Facts of the case are that the appellant joined on the post of General reserve Engineer Forces (GREF) in an emergency service. He worked as such for 08 years, 08 months and 27 days. Thereafter, he was made to retire on 05.06.1971. Since his retirement, no claim for pension was ever raised. It was for the first time in the year 2018 that a legal notice was served and, thereafter, the writ petition was filed. Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition observing as under:-

“2. Undisputably, petitioner stood retired on

05.06.1971. Thereafter, till date petitioner did not opt to approach either concerned authorities or Court but except only on 03.05.2018 by way of filing of instant petition. Thus, there is a considerable delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching the Court. There is no explanation furnished by him for not taking up the matter and filing of such petition earlier. As such, he is guilty of long delay and laches which is suggestive of the fact that he is deemed to have acquiesced or waived off his claim or right. Such a relief can neither be claimed or granted by ignoring a long and unexplained delay simply because, it is a continuing cause.

3. By now it is pretty settled proposition of law that the delay dis-entitles a party to discretionary relief under Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution. Petitioner kept sleeping over his rights for long and woke up after two and a half decades. To buttress this observation we can have assistance conveniently from the guideline laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana, 1998(1) SCT 26 (SC) : (1997) 6 SCC 538.

4. It is also equally settled that the law of limitation has legally to be construed especially in the circumstances that a right is accrued to the party opposite on account of delay which is attributed to the other party and said right cannot be scuttled down by taking a lenient view. Otherwise also, a party who approaches the Court is under a bounden duty to explain the delay in approaching the Court for a particular relief or to lay challenge to a specific order to which he/she aggrieved. To buttress this observation, we can have the reference made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Brijesh Kumar and others vs. State of Haryana and others, 2014 (11) SCC 351 and Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & others, 2013(4) RCR (Civil) 785.

5. Adverting to the facts of the case in hand, cause of action, if any, would have accrued to the petitioner at the time his retirement i.e. on 05.06.1971, whereas he approached this Court in the month of 03.05.2018, i.e. approximately after about five decades, that too, without any explanation.

6. Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances narrated above and the legal proposition, it can be safely observed that instant petition suffers from delay and laches especially i