Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:130439 Court No. - 52 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10931 of 2025 Petitioner :- Manoj Kumari (Assistant Teacher) Respondent :- State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Srivastava,Poonam Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Suresh Kumar Maurya Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Suresh Kumar Maurya, learned Counsel for respondent-BSA and learned Standing Counsel for the State. The prayer has been filed with the following prayers:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to command the respondents to make payment of salary to the petitioner as per the Government order dated 09.06.2014, 19.06.2014 and 01.12.2014 along with arrears on that account. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.3 and 4 to decide the representation dated 14.05.2025 and 09.06.2025 within stipulated time." Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was promoted on the post of Head Master in Prathmik Vidayalaya, Block-Bharthana, Etawah on 02.02.2008. He further submits that promotional pay scale has not been given to her, therefore, she represented before respondent no.3 for redressal of her grievance but nothing has been done till date. Therefore, a direction may be issued to the respondent no.3 to consider her claim. Learned counsel for respondent-BSA, on the basis of instructions, submits that for consideration of petitioner's claim certain documents were required, which have not been provided by the petitioner, therefore, no decision could be taken. He raised objection stating that no explanation has been given regarding delay and laches as to why the petitioner has moved this petition after nearly 17 years. therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as prayed. It is settled law that the person, who is not vigilant and dormant about his/her right, cannot be allowed to agitate his/her rights 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 due to delay in approaching the Court, cannot be allowed to be disturbed unless there is a reasonable explanation such 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 recognised 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 on the ground of inordinate delay. However, it is provided that in case the petitioner represented before the authorities concerned along with the relevant documents, appropriate decision may be taken by the authority concerned, in accordance with law. Order Date :- 4.8.2025 Rahul. Digitally signed by :- RAHUL GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- RAHUL GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad