Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:125813 Court No. - 52 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10573 of 2025 Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jaswant Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kaushlesh Pratap Singh Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. Heard Mr. Jaswant Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Kaushlesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2&3 and learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondent. The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer to direct the respondent authorities to pay the death-cum-retirement gratuity to the petitioner along with interest admissible thereon and a further prayer to direct the respondent no.3 to decide the representation dated 14.05.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that father of the petitioner, who has been working as Assistant Teacher in the Department and expired on 04.01.1997. The death cum retirement gratuity has not been paid to the petitioner till date. Therefore, he has moved a representation before the respondent no.3 on 14.05.2024, but nothing has been done. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-BSA submits that the petitioner has approached this Court after a delay of nearly 28 years without explaining the laches of inordinate delay. On the basis of instructions, he further submits that prior to 14.05.2024, no representation was given by the petitioner as they were not on record, therefore, no interference is required. Even otherwise, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as prayed, in view of the settled position of law. It is settled law that a person, who is not vigilant and dormant about his right, cannot be allowed to agitate his right as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman and Managing Director & Ors. Vs. Smt. Parden Oraon reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 299. The time-barred cases should not be entertained by Courts as the rights, which have accrued to others by reason of delay in approaching the Court, cannot be allowed to be disturbed unless there is a reasonable explanation for the delay. The vested rights of the parties should not be disrupted at the instance of a person, who is a guilty of culpable negligence. The Privy Council in General Fire and Life Assurance Corporation Ltd. Vs. Janmahomed Abdul Rahim, AIR 1941 PC 6, relied upon the writings of Mr. Mitra in Tagore Law Lectures 1932, wherein it has been said that "a law of limitation and prescription may appear to operate harshly and unjustly in a particular case, but if the law provides for a limitation, it is to be enforced even at the risk of hardship to a particular party as the Judge cannot, on applicable grounds, enlarge the time allowed by the law, postpone its operation, or introduce exceptions not recognized by law." In N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy, reported in (1998) 7 SCC 133, the Apex Court explained the scope of limitation and condonation of delay, observing as under:- "The primary function of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. The time-limit fixed for approaching the Court in different situations is not because on the expiry of such time a bad cause would transform into a good cause. Rules of limitation 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 for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy." In the case of Northern Indian Glass Industries Vs. Jaswant Singh & ors., reported in AIR 2003 SC 234, the Apex Court has held that the High Court cannot ignore the delay and laches in approaching the writ court and there must be satisfactory explanation by the petitioner as how he could not come to the Court well in time. Further in the the case of Printers (Mysore) Ltd. Vs. M.A. Rasheed & Anr. reported in (2004) 4 SCC 460, the Apex Court has held that the High Court should dismiss the writ petition on the ground of unexplained inordinate delay. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds no good ground to entertain the present writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 29.7.2025 Jitendra/- Digitally signed by :- JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad