CWP-16827 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Munish Kumar State of Punjab and CORAM: Present: KULDEEP TIWARI 1. Articles 226 dated 02.12.2016 (Annexure P post of Pump Operator ( of his original promotion with all consequential benefits. 2. learned counsel for the petitioner, decade to challenge the order (supra). endeavour to persuade this Court that the delay occurred in impugning the order the petition at hand inordinate delay of about 10 years reference a situation, this Court inordinate and unexplained delay, and proceed with the matter. though the petitioner had moved the authorities concerned, vide a legal notice, as regards his grievances which are raised before this Court, which was responded to by the authorities, vide Annexure P Apparently, it seems that 16827-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Munish Kumar Versus State of Punjab and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Mr. Amaninder Singh Sekhon for the petitioner. **** KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (Oral) The petitioner, by way of instant 226/227 of the Constitution of India, dated 02.12.2016 (Annexure P-5), vide which, he was reverted from the post of Pump Operator (Class-III) to Helper (Class his original promotion order dated 31.08.2015 (Annex with all consequential benefits. At the very outset, this Court pose learned counsel for the petitioner, as to why, decade to challenge the order (supra). In response, endeavour to persuade this Court that the delay occurred in impugning is on account of bonafide reasons. petition at hand sans any plausible reason, which could justify the inordinate delay of about 10 years in approaching this Court, to the decisions drawn by the Hon’ble Supreme Court a situation, this Court finds no good reason to inordinate and unexplained delay, and proceed with the matter. the petitioner had moved the authorities concerned, vide a legal notice, as regards his grievances which are raised before this Court, which was responded to by the authorities, vide Annexure P Apparently, it seems that the petitioner ha IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-16827-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 26.05.2026 ….Petitioner ….Respondent KULDEEP TIWARI Amaninder Singh Sekhon, Advocate, The petitioner, by way of instant writ petition filed under of the Constitution of India, seeks quashing of the order 5), vide which, he was reverted from the III) to Helper (Class-IV), and restoration dated 31.08.2015 (Annexure P-2), along this Court posed a specific query to the as to why, the petitioner took about a In response, he made all possible endeavour to persuade this Court that the delay occurred in impugning reasons. However, it is evident that sans any plausible reason, which could justify the in approaching this Court, except a decisions drawn by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In such no good reason to overlook the gross, inordinate and unexplained delay, and proceed with the matter. Further, the petitioner had moved the authorities concerned, vide a legal notice, as regards his grievances which are raised before this Court, which was responded to by the authorities, vide Annexure P-6. the petitioner has made an attempt to resurrect 26.05.2026 under order 5), vide which, he was reverted from the IV), and restoration 2), along a specific query to the about a ssible endeavour to persuade this Court that the delay occurred in impugning it is evident that sans any plausible reason, which could justify the a In such the gross, Further, the petitioner had moved the authorities concerned, vide a legal notice, as regards his grievances which are raised before this Court, 6. resurrect AMIT KUMAR 2026.05.29 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-16827 the dead pursuing his cause diligently. 3. passage of time, the law of limitation has evolved considerably a been accepted that it may harshly affect a particular party, but it has to be applied with all its the limitation on equitable grounds. The provisions of the Limitation Act may not be liberall Court has to adopt a pragmatic and rational approach, while dealing with the contention of delay. The Court to whether, the delay has been validly explained, shall arrive at a decision, which, otherwise has attained finality. 4. N. Balakrishnan v. in a narrow compass, interprets that t public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim finis litium Further, the r parties, but their remedy promptly 16827-2026 -2- the dead claim, and to take a plea before this Court that pursuing his cause diligently. At this juncture, it is inevitable of time, the law of limitation has evolved considerably a been accepted that it may harshly affect a particular party, but it has to be applied with all its rigors. The Court shall not use its powers to extend the limitation on equitable grounds. The provisions of the Limitation Act may not be liberally construed, which will frustrate its very purpose. The Court has to adopt a pragmatic and rational approach, while dealing with the contention of delay. The Court is required to whether, the delay has been validly explained, shall arrive at a decision, which, otherwise has attained finality. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, N. Balakrishnan v. `M. Krishnamurty AIR 1998 SC 3222 in a narrow compass, interprets that the law of limitation is founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Further, the rules of limitations are not meant to destroy the righ , but to ensure that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics their remedy promptly. The relevant observations are as under: “Rules of limitations are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The law of limitation fixes a life such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and wasted time would never revisit. During the efflux of time, newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer person to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a time span must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim reipublicae interest ut sits finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitations are not meant to destroy the before this Court that he had been it is inevitable to record that, with the of time, the law of limitation has evolved considerably and it has been accepted that it may harshly affect a particular party, but it has to be . The Court shall not use its powers to extend the limitation on equitable grounds. The provisions of the Limitation Act y construed, which will frustrate its very purpose. The Court has to adopt a pragmatic and rational approach, while dealing with is required to delve into the issue, as to whether, the delay has been validly explained, and only thereafter, shall arrive at a decision, which, otherwise has attained finality. he Hon’ble Supreme Court, through a pronouncement in M. Krishnamurty AIR 1998 SC 3222, while putting he law of limitation is founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim reipublicae interest ut sits (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). ules of limitations are not meant to destroy the rights of the that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics and avail . The relevant observations are as under:- “Rules of limitations are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by egal injury. The law of limitation fixes a life-span for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and wasted time would never revisit. During the efflux of time, newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer rson to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a time span must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The law of limitation is thus founded on It is enshrined in the maxim reipublicae interest ut sits finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitations are not meant to destroy the he had been with the nd it has been accepted that it may harshly affect a particular party, but it has to be . The Court shall not use its powers to extend the limitation on equitable grounds. The provisions of the Limitation Act y construed, which will frustrate its very purpose. The Court has to adopt a pragmatic and rational approach, while dealing with to delve into the issue, as and only thereafter, pronouncement in , while putting he law of limitation is founded on reipublicae interest ut sits (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). ts of the and avail “Rules of limitations are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by span for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and wasted time would never revisit. During the efflux of time, newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer rson to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a time span must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The law of limitation is thus founded on It is enshrined in the maxim reipublicae interest ut sits finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitations are not meant to destroy the AMIT KUMAR 2026.05.29 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-16827 5. suffering from gross and inordinate delay failed to explain the valid reasons, which restrained him from assailing the order defeats equity, sleeps over invoke the already been Maity Vs. it has observed 16827-2026 -3- rights of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time." As referred to above, the suffering from gross and inordinate delay failed to explain the valid reasons, which restrained him from assailing all these years. It is a settled equity, and a person who approaches over his rights for a considerable period the writ jurisdiction to claim extraordinary been examined by the Hon’ble Vs. Chhanda Koley and Ors.”, 2024 observed:- “12. It is apposite to take Court in Karnataka Power Corportion Thangappan and another, (2006) been held that the High Court jurisdiction if there is negligence applicant to assert his right. It has “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 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 the applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite party. Even where fundamental right is involved the matter is still within the discretion of the Court as pointed out in v. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports 185 : AIR 1970 SC 769] . Of course, the discretion has to be exercised judicially and reasonably. XX XX rights of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not sort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time." , the present petition is not only suffering from gross and inordinate delay, but the petitioner has also failed to explain the valid reasons, which restrained him from assailing settled proposition of law that delay approaches the Court belatedly, or period of time, is not entitled to extraordinary relief. This issue has Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Mrinmoy 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 318.,wherein, take note of the dicta laid down by this Corportion Ltd. and another v. (2006) 4 SCC 322 whereunder it has may refuse to exercise extraordinary ligence or omissions on the part of the 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 the applicant to assert his right as aken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite party. Even where fundamental right is involved the matter is still within the discretion of the Court as pointed out in Durga Prashad v. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports [(1969) 1 SCC 185 : AIR 1970 SC 769] . Of course, the discretion has to be exercised judicially and reasonably. XX XX” rights of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not sort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a is not only , but the petitioner has also failed to explain the valid reasons, which restrained him from assailing delay or to has “Mrinmoy wherein, this K. has extraordinary the “6. Delay or laches is one of the factors which is to be borne in mind by the High Court when they exercise their 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 the applicant to assert his right as aken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite party. Even where fundamental right is involved the matter is still within Durga Prashad [(1969) 1 SCC 185 : AIR 1970 SC 769] . Of course, the discretion has to be AMIT KUMAR 2026.05.29 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-16827 6. Ors.”, 2023 held that juxtaposed extracted 7. of Law of clothed with persuade petitioner been genuinely aggrieved by the impugned order, he would have assailed the same 8. 26.05.2026 Ak Sharma 16827-2026 -4- Likewise, in “Bichitrananda 2023 AIR Supreme Court 5064, that delay and latches, especially juxtaposed with the sign of acquiescence. hereunder:- “20. On an overall circumspection, the Respondent No.5 should have delay and laches, which especially consistently to be vital, juxtaposed To the mix, we add that the circumstances concerning the continuance in service as also during the said period in another Nigamananda High School, Terundia. No.5 does not, from the record approached the authorities in the In conspectus of the pronouncements of Limitation, it is manifestly clear with any extra-ordinary circumstance, this Court to take a view otherwise. petitioner been genuinely aggrieved by the impugned order, he would ave assailed the same in due course, and In summa, the instant writ petition also stands 26.05.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable “Bichitrananda Behera Vs. State of Orissa and , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has especially in service matters, are vital, acquiescence. The relevant paragraph circumspection, thus, in the present case have been non-suited on the ground especially in service matters, has been held juxtaposed with the sign of acquiescence. the State has supported the factual the appointment of the appellant, his the Respondent No.5 having worked another school viz. the Sri Thakur Terundia. Notably, the Respondent record before us, appear to have the interregnum.” pronouncements (supra), on the subject clear that the matter at hand is not circumstance, which can even remotely otherwise. Not only that, had the petitioner been genuinely aggrieved by the impugned order, he would certainly, not after a decade. the instant writ petition also stands dismissed. (KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE Yes Yes/No and has vital, is case ground of held acquiescence. factual his worked Thakur Respondent have subject not remotely Not only that, had the petitioner been genuinely aggrieved by the impugned order, he would AMIT KUMAR 2026.05.29 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document