APHC010122382025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 6642/2025 Between: Paruchuri Vinod Babu ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PEETA RAMAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES II 2 The Court made the following order: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief/s:- “…to issue a writ or order, orders or directions more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in general and also 4th respondent in particular in not paying arrears of salary etc., to the petitioner from 26-01- 2003 till 03-12-2004 as illegal, arbitrary, discriminative besides violative of Arts.14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently, direct the respondents in general and also 4th respondent in particular to pay arrears of the salary to the petitioner for the period from 26-01-2003 till 03-12-2004 and pass such other order or orders.…” 2. Heard Sri Peeta Raman, learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. The petitioner was initially appointed as Secretary under Half- a-Millennium-Job-Scheme in the year 1978. In the year 2003, while he was working with 4th respondent-PACS, on the pretext of staffing pattern and pay-scales under Section 116(C) of the Cooperative Societies Act/Rules, he was surrendered to the 5th respondent by proceedings dated 26.01.2003. The petitioner challenged the same in W.P.No.7364 of 2003, in which by interim order dated 31.10.2003 the proceedings dated 26.01.2003 were suspended. Though the petitioner tried to report with 4th respondent, he was not allowed. On repeated persuasions, he finally came to be allowed to report for duty. The petitioner, subsequently, was posted at Vemuru PACS on deputation, where he reported to duty on 04.12.2004 and worked till 28.02.2009. Thereafter, he retired from the service on 31.08.2009. The petitioner laid a claim for salary during the period from 3 26.01.2003 to 03.12.2004. Though he attended to duty, he was not allowed to sign in the attendance register. Thereby, he was denied the legitimately payable salaries. For the first time, such request came to be submitted on 19.01.2009. As he was unwell and had health problems, besides poor financial conditions, he would not take steps to file writ petition. Therefore, he approached this Court with certain delay. The petitioner also came to know that earlier W.P.No.7364 of 2003 came to be dismissed as infructuous by an order dated 21.12.2017. However, the same was not informed to him by his previous counsel. Therefore, there is a delay in filing present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to explain the delay and laches in filing writ petition by referring to reasons stated in paragraph No.9 of the writ affidavit. 5. This Court has not convinced with the reasons so stated. The claim relates to the period 26.01.2003 to 03.12.2004, which for the first time came to be agitated by making representation on 19.09.2009, that too after the petitioner retired from service on 31.08.2009, which itself is belated and unexplained. 6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh1, held that belated service related claim will have to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches, particularly when remedy sought to be 1 (2008) 8 SCC 648 4 enforced by filing a writ petition or on ground of limitation when remedy is sought to be enforced by approaching Administrative Tribunal. As in the present case, there is an inordinate delay, at no stretch of imagination the petitioner is entitled to invoke equitable jurisdiction of this Court. 7. Over and above, the petitioner kept silent for almost sixteen years, even after making such representation, in ascertaining his rights and seeking legal remedies. Such a long period of delay is uncondonable. The petitioner by not initiating appropriate legal action is, in a way, given up his claim, which clearly amounts to acquiescence. Since, there is a substantive delay and unexplained laches, this Court is not inclined to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date: 18.03.2025 KBN 5 137 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 6642/2025 Date: 18.03.2025 KBN