IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 17.04.2026 Sunder Lal ..... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA Present: Mr. Nafeesh Ahmed, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Addl. AG, Haryana.

*****

DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA, J.(Oral)

1 In the present writ petition, the petitioner is praying for issuance of directions to the respondents to re-appoint/re-enroll the petitioner on the post of Home-guard on the ground that the petitioner has been illegally terminated/discharged from service.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was enrolled as Home-guard in the respondent-department in the year 2014. As per the petitioner, the petitioner was discharged from service in the year 2018. It transpires that the petitioner moved various representations to the concerned department and requested to re-enroll/re-appoint him back in service, however, no action was taken by the respondents on the abovesaid representations. Aggrieved against the action of the respondents in discharging the petitioner from service, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that no notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before of the petitioner was discharged from service in the year 2018, as such, the action of the respondents in discharging the petitioner from service is bad in law. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to be re-appointed/re-enrolled as Home-guard volunteer.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-State submits that as the petitioner did not have the requisite height as required as per the rules for the purpose of appointment on the post of Home Guard and an FIR No.345 dated 20.08.2014 was registered under Sections 147, 148, 323, 452 & 506 IPC after the appointment of the petitioner, as such, the petitioner was rightly discharged from service. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that the present writ petition has been filed after inordinate delay of 03 years, as such, the same is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches.

5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties at length and have perused the record with their able assistance.

6. A perusal of the present writ petition would show that the writ petition has been filed after an inordinate delay of more than 3 years.

No valid explanation has been given by the petitioner in regard to delay in filing the present writ petition.

7. It is well-settled law that where there is an inordinate delay in filing the writ petition, the writ petition should not ordinarily be entertained. A perusal of the facts of the present case would show that no explanation has been given by the petitioner in knocking the doors of this Court after such an inordinate delay.

8. In State of M.P. and others vs. Nandlal Jaiswal and others, (1986) 4 SCC 566, the Supreme Court has held that the power of the High Court to issue an appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary and that the High Court in the exercise of its discretionary power would not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic. If there was inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in filing of the writ petition and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The relevant extract of the judgment in Nandlal Jaiswal's case (surpa) reads as under:-

“24. Now, it is well settled that the power of the High Court to issue an appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and the High Court in the exercise of its discretion does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic. If there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in filing a writ petiti