LPA-115-2023 (O&M) 102 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT LILU RAM STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR Present: Mr. Ajit Kumar Sharma, Advocate for Mr. R.D. Yadav, Advocate for the appellant. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) 1. The challenge is to the order Single Judge gross laches and delay. It is noticed that the appellant retired on 31.01.2016 and was granted time to time promotio any grievance while in service, and it is after his services that he legal notice in 2020, whereafter too, he remained silent, and had filed a petition only in October 2022. Seven years after retirement is too long a period to 2. Therefore, no interference is warranted of this Court in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed. (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA **** Mr. Ajit Kumar Sharma, Advocate for Mr. R.D. Yadav, Advocate for the appellant. **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) The challenge is to the order dated 14.11.2022 Single Judge, whereby he has non-suited the appellant on the ground of gross laches and delay. It is noticed that the appellant retired on 31.01.2016 and was granted time to time promotio any grievance while in service, and it is after his services that he legal notice in 2020, whereafter too, he remained silent, and had filed a petition only in October 2022. Seven years after retirement is too long a period to be made for claiming rights. Therefore, no interference is warranted of this Court in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA-115-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision: 08.07.2025 . . . . Appellant . . . . Respondents HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Mr. Ajit Kumar Sharma, Advocate for SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) dated 14.11.2022 passed by the learned suited the appellant on the ground of gross laches and delay. It is noticed that the appellant retired on 31.01.2016 and was granted time to time promotions. He has not raised any grievance while in service, and it is after his services that he sent a legal notice in 2020, whereafter too, he remained silent, and had filed a petition only in October 2022. Seven years after retirement is too long be made for claiming rights. Therefore, no interference is warranted of this Court in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The Appeal is accordingly (O&M) .2025 Appellant s passed by the learned suited the appellant on the ground of gross laches and delay. It is noticed that the appellant retired on ns. He has not raised sent a legal notice in 2020, whereafter too, he remained silent, and had filed a petition only in October 2022. Seven years after retirement is too long Therefore, no interference is warranted of this Court in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The Appeal is accordingly MOHIT GOYAL 2025.07.09 15:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-115-2023 (O&M) 3. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. 08.07.2025 Mohit goyal 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? 2. Whether reportable? (O&M) All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHAR (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? Yes/No All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MOHIT GOYAL 2025.07.09 15:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document