The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, dismissed a writ petition filed by Hanuman Singh, a former employee of the Horticulture Department, Uttar Pradesh, citing an “unexplained delay and laches of 11 years” as a key reason for rejection. Justice Alok Mathur presided over the case, WRIT – A No. 10219 of 2024, heard on November 6, 2024, which revolved around Singh’s claim for pensionary benefits based on an earlier regularization date.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Hanuman Singh, was appointed as a daily wage worker in the Group D post of Mali on January 1, 1984, at the Horticulture Department in Faizabad. Despite working continuously for nearly 20 years, Singh’s position was not regularized. In 2004, he filed Writ Petition No. 6615 (S/S) of 2004, seeking regularization and a fair pay scale. After protracted proceedings, the court, through an order in 2013, directed the department to consider his regularization, which led to his formal appointment from November 23, 2013. Singh served until his superannuation on April 30, 2024.
Following his retirement, Singh submitted representations requesting that his regularization date be revised to 2001 to enhance his pensionary benefits. When no action was taken on these representations, he approached the court once again in 2024, nearly 11 years after his initial regularization order.
Legal Issues and Contentions
The primary issue in this case revolved around the doctrine of laches and the acceptability of a delayed claim for benefits post-retirement. Singh’s counsel, Shiv Pal Singh and Suresh Singh, argued that his services should be regularized from 2001 in consideration of his extensive period of service. The counsel contended that his earlier service record and long duration of employment merited retroactive benefits, including pension adjustments.
However, the counsel for the respondents, represented by the Standing Counsel, argued that the petition was “highly time-barred” as Singh had accepted the 2013 regularization order without objection and failed to raise any grievance during his tenure. The respondents maintained that the doctrine of laches should apply, as the petitioner had waited until after his retirement to challenge the terms of his regularization.
Court’s Observations and Ruling
Justice Mathur, referencing various precedents from the Supreme Court, highlighted the impact of “delay, laches, and acquiescence” in public service matters. Citing the Supreme Court’s stance on service-related claims, Justice Mathur remarked that “normally, a belated service-related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches” unless there is a “continuing wrong” affecting the petitioner’s rights. In Singh’s case, however, the court determined that he had not demonstrated a continuing injury nor did he challenge the 2013 regularization order during his service.
Quoting Supreme Court rulings in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh and Union of India v. N Murugesan, the court emphasized the principles of laches, particularly how “a party who stands by and sees another dealing in a manner inconsistent with that right cannot later complain of the violation.” The court observed that Singh’s silence over the years constituted “passive acceptance” of his regularization terms, nullifying his current claim.
Significant Observations
Justice Mathur underscored the petitioner’s inaction as detrimental to his claim, stating:
“A right not exercised for a long time is nonexistent. Doctrine of delay and laches, as well as acquiescence, are applied to non-suit the litigants who approach the court belatedly without any justifiable explanation for bringing action after unreasonable delay.”
The court also observed that Singh’s attempt to revive an eleven-year-old issue, without a substantive explanation, was insufficient for invoking the court’s extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This provision, Justice Mathur stated, is not intended to remedy stale claims brought about by petitioners’ own lack of vigilance regarding their rights.
In a strongly worded conclusion, the court held that Singh’s writ petition suffered from “unexplained delay and laches of 11 years,” and accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
