***

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)

1. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner, an octogenarian senior citizen, assails the order dated 06.02.2026, whereby his claim for re-fixation of pay and pensionary benefits, by treating his work- charge service from 21.01.1967 to 30.03.1984 as qualifying service, has been rejected.

2. Succinctly stated, the petitioner was engaged as an Electrician on work-charge basis for the period from 21.01.1967 to 30.03.1984 (hereinafter referred to as “the period in question”). Thereafter, he was appointed as Electrician Grade-I on work-charge basis on 20.12.1985 and ultimately retired on 31.01.2003. In the meantime, his services were regularized on 13.03.1996. Upon retirement, the petitioner was granted pensionary benefits w.e.f. 06.03.1986.

3. After an inordinate and inexplicable delay of nearly 22 years from his date of superannuation and 41 years from 30.03.1984, the petitioner approached the authority concerned through a legal notice dated 28.07.2025, thereby demanding pensionary benefits by reckoning his work- charge service for the period in question as qualifying service. The authority, vide the impugned order, rejected the claim inter alia on grounds of delay and laches.

4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner’s continuous service from 20.12.1985 to 13.03.1996 (regularization date) and from 13.03.1996 to 31.01.2003 (superannuation date) has already been duly reckoned for the purposes of pensionary benefits.

5. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and has perused the judgments (Annexures P-30 and P-31) relied upon in support of the petitioner’s case. However, in the considered view of this Court, the said judgments are of no assistance to the petitioner. The core issue requiring determination is as to whether the work- charge service rendered by the petitioner for the period in question is liable to be counted towards qualifying service for pensionary benefits, despite there being break in service. Unless and until the said issue is adjudicated, no question of re-fixation of pension arises.

6. However, the issue (supra) does not require examination in the present case, inasmuch as the threshold issue is whether the petitioner’s legal notice to the authority concerned after an inordinate and unexplained delay of approximately 22 years vests him with a fresh cause of action and whether he can be permitted to revive such a stale claim. The answer, in the considered view of this Court, is in the negative. The present writ petition is marred by delay and laches, as the petitioner neither preferred any application during his service tenure to secure counting of his work-charge service for the period in question, nor asserted his claim for about 22 years after his retirement.

7. It is a trite law that delay defeats equity, and a person who approaches the Court belatedly, or sleeps over his rights for a considerable period of time, cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court to claim extraordinary relief. This issue has been examined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Mrinmoy Maity Vs. Chhanda Koley and Ors.”, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 318. The relevant observations are extracted hereunder:-

“12. It is apposite to take note of the dicta laid down by this Court in Karnataka Power Corportion Ltd. and another v. K. Thangappan and another, (2006) 4 SCC 322 whereunder it has been held that the High Court may refuse to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction if there is negligence or omissions on the part of the applicant to assert his right. It has been further held thereunder:

“6. Delay or laches is one of the factors which is to be borne in mind by the High Court when they exercise their discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. In an appropriate case the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there is such negligence or omission on the part of