IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

Date of Decision.:11.02.2025 Tarsem Lal …..Pe--oner Vs.

State of Punjab and Others .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Mohit Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

Pe(cid:27)(cid:27)oner was serving as Assistant Operator in the office of MARKFED, Kapurthala and re(cid:27)red on 23.09.2014 on a,aining the age of superannua(cid:27)on. However, extension of service for one year was granted to him on the same post. A charge-sheet was served upon him on 18.02.2015 and later, the pe(cid:27)(cid:27)oner voluntarily re(cid:27)red on 29.05.2015.

2. Learned counsel contends that charges against the pe(cid:27)(cid:27)oner were not proved and that the pensionary benefits i.e. gratuity and leave encashment of ₹8,46,940/- were received by the pe(cid:27)(cid:27)oner in his bank account on 18.04.2019.

3. By way of this pe(cid:27)(cid:27)on, prayer is made by the pe(cid:27)(cid:27)oner for direc(cid:27)ng the respondents to release the interest on payment of the pensionary benefits for the delayed period.

4. It is evident that pensionary benefits were released to the pe(cid:27)(cid:27)oner wayback in April, 2019. The present pe(cid:27)(cid:27)on has been filed in December, 2024 i.e. a;er more than 05 years. Learned counsel for the pe(cid:27)(cid:27)oner is unable to convince this Court regarding this inordinate delay.

5. Thus, pe(cid:27)(cid:27)on is evidently hit by the principles of long delay and latches. Though, for filing of a writ pe(cid:27)(cid:27)on under Ar(cid:27)cles 226 of the Indian Cons(cid:27)tu(cid:27)on, there is no strict statute of limita(cid:27)on, but this does not mean that delays are en(cid:27)rely overlooked. The courts apply the principles of delay and laches to determine the reasonableness of the delay in filing such a pe(cid:27)(cid:27)on. In this regard, courts have significant discre(cid:27)on to decide whether a delay is unreasonable. They consider factors such as the jus(cid:27)fica(cid:27)on for the delay, poten(cid:27)al prejudice to the opposing party, and the public interest involved. Delays are more likely to be overlooked if the issue pertains to public interest or affects a large number of people. If the delay is deemed unreasonable and causes prejudice to the other party, or if the pe(cid:27)(cid:27)oner has acquiesced to the situa(cid:27)on, the court may dismiss the pe(cid:27)(cid:27)on.

6. In P.S. Sadasivaswamy vs The State Of Tamil Nadu AIR 1974 SC 2271, Hon’ble Supreme Court, observed as under:

“A person aggrieved by an order of promo(cid:27)ng a junior over his bead should approach the Court at least within six months or at the most a year of such promo(cid:27)on. It is not that 'here is any period of limita(cid:27)on for the Courts to exercise their powers under Ar(cid:27)cle 226 nor is it that there can never be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in a ma,er a;er the passage of a certain length of (cid:27)me. But it would be a sound and wise exercise of discre(cid:27)on for the Courts to refuse to exercise their extra- ordinary powers under Ar(cid:27)cle 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expedi(cid:27)ously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the Court to put forward stale claims and try to unse,le se,led ma,ers. The pe(cid:27)(cid:27)oner's pe(cid:27)(cid:27)on should, therefore have been dismissed in limine. Entertaining such pe(cid:27)(cid:27)ons is a waste of (cid:27)me of the court. It clogs the work of the Court and impedes the work of the court in considering legi(cid:27)mate grievances as also its normal work. We consider that the High court was right in dismissing the appellant's pe(cid:27)(cid:27)on as well as the appeal.”

7. Hon'ble Supreme Court has recently held in Mrinmoy Maity Vs Chhanda Koley and others, 2024 SCC Online SC 551, as under:-

“9. Having heard rival conten(cid:27)ons raised and on perusal of the facts obtain