[2025:RJ-JP:6433] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2282/2025 Kalyan Prasad Panchal S/o Shri Laxminarayan Panchal, Aged About 66 Years, Resident Of Gram Pachad Post Bambori Ghata Tehsil Chippa Barod District-Baran (Rajasthan) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary. Rural Development And Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. Zila Parishad, Through The Chief Executive Officer Udaipur (Raj.) 3. Panchayat Samiti, Through Its Development Officer. Sarada, District Udaipur (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. H. C. Mourya For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 13/02/2025 1. The present petition is filed assailing the impugned orders dated 07.07.2017 and 08.01.2018, with a prayer seeking direction to the respondents for regularization of the petitioner with effect from 01.08.1998. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has retired in the year 2019. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, upon a perusal of the Court file, it is noted that the petitioner is superannuated from service in the year 2019 and the present petition is filed in the year 2025 i.e. with an approximate delay of 6 years. 4. This Court deems it apposite to dispose of the instant petitioner on account of delay and laches and while adjudicating [2025:RJ-JP:6433] (2 of 2) [CW-2282/2025] the instant matter reliance is placed upon the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court as enunciated in Bichitrananda Behera vs. State of Orissa and Ors.:Civil Appeal No. 6664 of 2023, Union of India & Ors. Vs. N. Murugesan reported in (2022) 2 SCC 45 and Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and Ors. Vs. T.T. Murli Babu reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108. In Chennai Metropolitan (supra). The relevant portion of the above cited is reiterated as under:- “The doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the Court would be under legal obligation to scrutinize whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the Court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant – a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, “procrastination is the greatest thief of time” and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis.” 5. Accordingly, the instant petition is disposed of. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (SAMEER JAIN),J Pooja /442