IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

118 CWP-18537-2025 Date of Decision: 08.07.2025 Balkar Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present: - Mr. Balbir Singh Jaswal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Aman Dhir, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab ***

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking direction to respondents to consider him for promotion from the date his junior Nirmal Singh was promoted.

2. The petitioner joined Punjab Police as Constable on 04.12.1981. From time to time, he was promoted. He retired as Assistant Sub-Inspector on 30.06.2015.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner as well as his junior Nirmal Singh passed Lower School Course in 1992. Nirmal Singh joined service on 08.09.1983. Both petitioner and Nirmal Singh were promoted as Assistant Sub-Inspector in 2010. However, while Nirmal Singh was further promoted to the rank of Sub-Inspector in 2014, the petitioner was not extended the benefit of such promotion.

4. The petitioner retired on 30.06.2015 and cause of action, if any, arose in 2014. A period of 11 years has passed away from the date of cause of action. On being asked reason of inordinate delay in approaching this court, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that action of the respondents has affected retiral benefits of the petitioner, thus, there is recurring cause, thus, writ petition is maintainable.

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 that 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 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 exercise