IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on:05.05.2025 ASHWANI KUMAR ……Appellant Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN Present:- Mr. Ravinder Singh Randhawa, Advocate for the appellant.

SUDHIR SINGH, J.

CM-115-LPA-2025 For the reasons given in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 3 days in re-filing the appeal in condoned.

LPA-50-2025 The challenge in the instant intra Court appeal is to the order dated 22.10.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.

2. Before the learned Single Judge, the appellant had sought directions to the respondent-authorities to grant him the benefit of ACP (Assured Career Progression) on completion of 18 and 24 years of service.

3. As per the facts on record, the appellant retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation in the year 2007. The appellant filed the writ petition in the year 2024 raising his grievance in respect of the alleged denial of ACP to him on completion of 18 and 24 years of service. The learned Single Judge, after noticing the arguments of the counsel for the parties, has found that the writ petition suffered from delay and laches.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has vehemently argued that an employee even after his retirement, remains to be the employee of the Department as he has been in receipt of pensionary benefits on regular basis. It is further argued that cause of action kept occurring to the appellant on day to day basis and, therefore, the finding of the learned Single Judge that the appellant had approached the Court belatedly, is not tenable in the eyes of the law. It is further argued that while passing the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has not taken into consideration the factum of the appellant having submitted various representations in respect of the grievances raised in the writ petition. It is accordingly argued that the impugned order be set aside.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also have gone through the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.

6. The only question that arises for consideration before this Court is whether the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, requires any interference.

7. There is no denying the fact that the appellant superannuated in the year 2007. There is no justification at all on the part of the appellant as to why he did not claim the benefit allegedly accrued to him during his service tenure. He approached the Court for the first time by way of writ petition in the year 2024 i.e., nearly 17 years after his retirement. It is settled law that a litigant who sleeps over his rights, cannot be granted any benefit in equity.

8. It is settled law that the delay is genus to which laches and acquiescence are species. It is further settled that the delay disentitles a party to the discretionary relief under the Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If a litigant keeps sleeping over his rights for a long period and wakes up when he does have an impetus either from the judicial verdict of the Court or otherwise, such litigant is not entitled to any relief. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. N. Murugesan, (2022) 2 SCC 25 has held as under:-

“Delay, laches and acquiescence

20. The principles governing delay, laches, and acquiescence are overlapping and interconnected on many occasions. However, they have their distinct characters and distinct elements. One can say that delay is the genus to which laches and acquiescence are species. Similarly, laches might be called a genus to a species by name acquiescence. However, there may be a case where acquiescence is involved, but not laches. These principles are common law principles, and perhaps one could identify that these principles find place in various statutes which restrict the period of limitation and create non-consideration