110 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 11.09.2025 Mehar Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Atul Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release the retiral benefits i.e. leave encashment and gratuity as well as other pensionary benefits to the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner was appointed as a work charge Chowkidar on 13.11.1978 and his services were confirmed on 13.11.1983 and later on, he was promoted in the year 1991 and all regular benefits were granted to him. The petitioner retired on 30.04.2017. The petitioner was not granted the benefit of his service rendered with effect from 1978 to 1983, whereas, this benefit has been granted to similarly situated employees. The petitioner made numerous representations to the respondent-Department and also personally visited the concerned officials in the Department for redressal of this claim towards his past service rendered by him for the period of five years from 1978 to 1983. Thereafter, the petitioner serve a legal notice on 12.03.1995 which remained unheeded.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the present writ petition has been filed after an inordinate delay without any valid explanation and as such, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed on account of delay and laches as extraordinary jurisdiction cannot be invoked at the convenience of the litigants.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that the claim of the petitioner arose at the time of his retirement. However, he could not provide any satisfactory reason to justify the delay in approaching this Court.

5. It is trite law that the delay in approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be condoned if sufficient cause is indicated or a reasonable explanation is provided for the same. However, the facts of the matter at hand indicate otherwise. Learned counsel petitioner has failed to specify any compelling or extenuating circumstance which prevented him from approaching this Court for such a long time. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by a three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chairman/Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Limited and Others vs. Ram Gopal (2021) 13 SCC 225, wherein, the following was held:

“16. Whilst it is true that limitation does not strictly apply to proceedings under Articles 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India , nevertheless, such rights cannot be enforced after an unreasonable lapse of time. Consideration of unexplained delays and inordinate laches would always be relevant in writ actions, and writ courts naturally ought to be reluctant in exercising their discretionary jurisdiction to protect those who have slept over wrongs and allowed illegalities to fester. Fence- sitters cannot be allowed to barge into Courts and cry for their rights at their convenience, and vigilant citizens ought not to be treated alike with mere opportunists. On multiple occasions, it has been restated that there are implicit limitations of time within which writ remedies can be enforced. In SS Balu v. State of Kerala, this Court observed thus:

“17. It is also well settled principle of law that "delay defeats equity". .... It is now a trite law that where the writ petitioner approaches the High Court after a long delay , reliefs prayed for may be denied to them on the ground of delay and laches irrespective of the fact that they are similarly situated to the other candidates who obtain the benefit of the judgment.”” (emphasis added)

6. Further, in Mrinmoy Maity vs. Chhanda Koley and others 2024 AIR