[2026:RJ-JP:20027-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 291/2026 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2320/2026 Shyam Singh Son Of Shri Kare Singh, Aged About 74 Years, R/o Bah Soniga, Kagarol, District Agra (U.P.) ----Appellant Versus 1. Managing Director, the Bharatpur Central Co-Operative Bank, Head Office Headquarter Bijlighar, Bharatpur (Raj.) 2. Registrar, Rajasthan Sahakari Samitiya, Sahkar Bhawan, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Brijendra Singh Kachhawa For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 12/05/2026 1. Petitioner seeks to assail the final order dated 06.02.2026, passed by learned Single Judge, dismissing his Writ Petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2320/2026 on the ground of delay and laches, filed by the petitioner praying to direct the respondents to grant monetary benefits/emoluments for the post of Branch Manager, on which petitioner discharged his duties during the period from 2007 to 2011. 2. The case of petitioner, as pleaded in the writ petition, is that he was posted in Bharatpur Central Co-operative Bank on the post of Banking Assistant in the year 1978, however, w.e.f. 16.08.2007 upto the date of his superannuation on 31.07.2011, during this period, he was assigned duties of Branch Manager, hence, for this [2026:RJ-JP:20027-DB] (2 of 4) [SAW-291/2026] period, the monetary benefits payable for the post of Branch Manager be directed to be paid to petitioner. 3. We find that, grievance in respect of non-grant of such emoluments for the post of Branch Manager, was raised by the petitioner, by means of filing writ petition before this High Court on 29.01.2026, whereas the cause of action, to claim entitlement of the benefits and emoluments of the post of Branch Manager, had accrued to petitioner way back in the year 2007 itself. Moreover, petitioner has retired from service w.e.f. 31.07.2011, hence, at the most, the emoluments, to work on the post of Branch Manager for period of 2007 to 2011, could have been claimed then and there or within a reasonable period of limitation, but same were not claimed and the claim has been put forth by petitioner in the year 2025-2026, which has been held ex-facie barred by limitation by learned Single Judge and the writ petition, preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed, holding that same suffers from enormous delay and latches on his part, that too without any explanation. 4. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Tridip Kumar Dingal & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors. [(2009) 1 SCC 768], observed that though there is no upper limit and there is no lower limit as to when a person can approach a writ Court, however, the question is one of discretion and has to be decided on the basis of facts before the Court depending on and varying from case to case. It was further observed that if the petitioner wants to invoke jurisdiction of a writ-Court, he should come to the Court at the earliest reasonably possible opportunity. Inordinate delay in [2026:RJ-JP:20027-DB] (3 of 4) [SAW-291/2026] making the motion for a writ will indeed be a good ground for refusing to exercise such discretionary jurisdiction. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley & Ors. [(2024) 15 SCC 215], following and reiterating the aforesaid proposition expounded in Tridip Kumar Dingal (supra) held that there is no doubt that no fixed period of limitation is prescribed. However, when the extraordinary jurisdiction of the writ Court is invoked, it has to be seen as to whether within a reasonable time same has been invoked and even submitting of memorials would not revive the dead cause of action or resurrect the cause of action which has had a natural death. For ready reference, the relevant portion of judgment, para nos. 9 & 10 are being reproduced as under:- “9. Having heard rival contentions raised and on perusal of the facts obtained in the present case, we are of the considered view that writ petitioner ought to have been non-suited or in other words writ petition ought to have been dismissed on the ground of delay and latches itself. An applicant who approaches the court belatedly or in other words sleeps over his rights for a considerable period of time, wakes up from his deep slumber ought not to be granted the extraordinary relief by the writ courts. This Court time and again has held that delay defeats equity. Delay or latches is one of the factors which should be born in mind by the High Court while exercising discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a given case, the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if laxity on the part of the applicant to assert his right has allowed the cause of action to drift away and attempts are made subsequently to rekindle the lapsed cause of action. 10. The discretion to be exercised would be with care and caution. If the delay which has occasioned in approaching the writ court is explained which would appeal to the conscience of the court, in such circumstances it cannot be gainsaid by the contesting [2026:RJ-JP:20027-DB] (4 of 4) [SAW-291/2026] party that for all times to come the delay is not to be condoned. There may be myriad circumstances which gives rise to the invoking of the extraordinary jurisdiction and it all depends on facts and circumstances of each case, same cannot be described in a straight jacket formula with mathematical precision. The ultimate discretion to be exercised by the writ court depends upon the facts that it has to travel or the terrain in which the facts have travelled.” 6. In view of above, the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference, hence, the present special appeal is hereby dismissed. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (SUDESH BANSAL),J pcg/10