[2025:RJ-JP:27078] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11380/2017 Sanwar Mal Yadav S/o Sh. Bhagwan Sahai Yadav, Resident Of Village Baghawas, Tehsil Phulera, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur 2. Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner 3. District Education Officer (Secondary), Jaipur 4. District Education Officer (Secondary), Jaipur II ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Neetu Bhansali For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 21/07/2025 1. Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed by the petitioner way back on 12.07.2017, seeking for grant of following relief:- "1. The respondents may be directed to give the benefit of I and II Selection Grade accordingly to the petitioner from the date persons similarly situated petitioner have been appointed against the vacancy of 1998-99. 2. The respondents may be directed to give the benefit of old Pension Rules which were enforceable at the relevant time. 3. The respondents may be directed to give the benefit of Seniority from the date persons junior or similarly situated to petitioner have been appointed. [2025:RJ-JP:27078] (2 of 4) [CW-11380/2017] 4. The respondents may be directed to pay arrears of the salary of the post to the petitioner with all consequential benefits along with interest @ 9% per annum. 5. Any other appropriate order, which may be found just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, be passed in favour of the petitioner. 6. Cost of the writ petition may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner." 2. Indisputably, against the vacancies of year 1998-99, for the post of PTI Grade III, petitioner was given appointment vide order dated 09.02.2004 (Ann.5). This order was passed in furtherance to allowing of the previous S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5824/1998 of petitioner vide order dated 22.07.2003. The issue is in respect of not granting 10 bonus marks to the petitioner for participation in the State Level Tournament. 3. A bare perusal of the order dated 22.07.2003, passed in previous writ petition, goes to show that it was made clear that the petitioner shall be entitled for actual benefits from the date of joining. No relief in respect of awarding notional benefits to the petitioner with other appointees, against the vacancies for 1998-99, was granted. Petitioner has not enclosed the memorandum of previous writ petition to show that such relief was not prayed by the petitioner. 4. Further, the order of appointment dated 09.02.2004 itself envisaged that petitioner shall not be governed by the Old Pension Scheme (OPS), since by that date, same had obsolete. The case of petitioner was directed to be governed under the CPF. 5. The matter was not agitated by the petitioner thereafter but it appears that petitioner woke up from slumber in the year 2017 [2025:RJ-JP:27078] (3 of 4) [CW-11380/2017] and filed instant writ petition on 12.07.2017, near about expiry of more than 13 years, from the date of issuance of his appointment order dated 09.02.2004. 6. Firstly, this Court finds that the writ petition suffers from delay and laches. There is no explanation for exorbitant delay of 13 years. Moreso, when in the appointment order, petitioner has been denied grant of benefit of OPS. Further, the issue for seeking relief of notional benefits, which was not granted to petitioner in the previous writ petition in the order dated 22.07.2003, may not be alive, after expiry of 13 years. 7. In case of Tridip Kumar Dingal Vs. State of West Bengal [(2009) 1 SCC 768] and other connected appeals, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that while exercising discretionary jurisdiction by the Court, it is well settled that power to issue a writ is discretionary and one of the grounds for refusing reliefs under Article 32 and 226 of the Constitution is that the petitioner is guilty of delay and laches. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Shankara Coop. Housing Society Lt. Vs. M.Prabhakar [(2011) 5 SCC 607] has held as under: “46. Delay and laches is one of the facts that requires to be borne in mind by the High Courts when they exercise their discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 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 rights taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances.” [2025:RJ-JP:27078] (4 of 4) [CW-11380/2017] 9. In view of above, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches so also is not liable to succeed on merits. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. 11. Stay application and any other pending application, if any, stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J TN/29