Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:137336-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8881 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Shanti Devi and another Respondent :- Union of India and 5 others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Kumar Saroj, Amardeo Singh, Anil Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I., Prem Narayan Rai Hon'ble Arun Bhansali, Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra, J. 1. This petition filed on 19.05.2025 is directed against order dated 07.03.2011 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, whereby the Original Application filed by the petitioners was dismissed. 2. The Original Application was filed by the petitioners aggrieved of the order dated 13.12.2005, whereby the applications filed by the petitioners dated 17.10.2005 and 19.10.2005 seeking issuance of family passes for herself and an appointment on compassionate ground for petitioner no. 2 were rejected. 3. At the outset, when counsel for the petitioners was confronted with the fact that the writ petition was filed after 14 years of passing of the order by the Tribunal, it was pointed out that the delay has been explained in paras 59 and 60 of the writ petition and reliance was placed on judgement in S. Ganesharaju (Dead) through LRs Vs. Narasamma (Dead) through LRs. : (2013) 11 SCC 341. 4. Paras 59 and 60 of the writ petition read as under:- "59. That it is pertinent to mention here that since some delay occurs for filing the instant writ petition, which is neither intentional nor willful, hence it may be condoned in the interest of justice. 60. That the order impugned dated 07.03 2011 could not be challenged within the prescribed period due to the reason that the petitioner no.2 was working in Haryana as labour being poor person he could not arrange the counsel fee as well as other expenses and further under some ill advise he also not came up before this Hon'ble Court within time and further after getting proper advice by the present counsel he came to Allahabad on 19.05.2025 after arranging the counsel fee and expenses as well as relevant documents for filing the present writ petition. Therefore in the interest of justice, delay and laches if any cause for filing the writ petition same may be condoned in the interest of justice." 5. A perusal of the above averments would reveal that the delay of 14 years has been indicated as 'some delay' and it is claimed, the same is neither intentional nor willful. Further claim made is that petitioner no. 2 was working in Haryana as labour and being poor person, he could not arrange the counsel fee as well as other expenses and only on getting proper advice, he came to Allahabad on 19.05.2025, after arranging the counsel fee and expenses. 6. The plea sought to be raised is merely an eye wash and has been indicated by way of completing a formality pretending to explain the delay. The petition suffers from unexplained laches of over 14 years in challenging the order impugned. 7. So far as the judgement in the case of S. Ganesharaju (supra) is concerned, in the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with a matter, where the delay was of 53 days and in that context, observations were made that 'sufficient cause' as appearing in Section 5 of the Limitation Act has to be given a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice and unless the respondents are able to show malafide in not approaching the Court within the period of limitation, generally, as a normal rule, delay should be condoned. The said observations have to be read in the context and cannot be applied universally, irrespective of the quantum of delay and where there is unexplained laches on part of the petitioners. 8. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned, as the petition suffers from unexplained laches of over 14 years. 9. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 11.8.2025 SL (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) Digitally signed by :- SHYAM LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad