Amir Chand v. State Of Punjab And Others
!"
# $%&%!'( )*) +%, - '# ))) % %!' , .&)
!"
0'1
'# ! - ,& ))) &3!'# ' & ( 45
) /
6 )
! "
$
certiorari % & '(
( '
+ ,-
(. ((.
+ '-
/ 1 2+$ 3 (+ 4 (
5 6
mandamus // // ' #//
#
7
2/ * + +'
(, (( +,-
5
!
9!: / 9 : # ; < %!/+ % / /
&
=
+# (
,
/ >/ )
9-
9
( (.
, '
(, (.
,"4 '
( ((
7
2/
' #// / 7
#
)3 -
,66 ) @ A-
/
( (
,6
( ,66 < 9/
// // % /+%
#
1 # :!B9 $ ;% 7
( ,,.
+4- 9 $ ;% // #
; //
// / /+%!%
#;+6"6+ ,,"
@2 *
C
7
A
' (, ,,"
+.-
5
5
,,"
+ - #// # / /
?
+// // /+%!%
% # 0
#;+.
""+
,,, @ C
7
A /
"
((( +"-
# / '
(, (( 2/ 7 9/ = 2/ +,- #!#
7
// // ' #// % /+%
/
1 5 '+# 5 ,
( (' (('
$
/ +
-
% *77 @+%, - '#
'# ! - ,& .&)
!"
0'1 2A / 1 2+$ 3 (+ 4 (
( (
,6
(('
+ - / +# /
(. ((4
8 + '- 7 / = / * + + .
' ( ( '
+ "-
/
#;+ (.6 + ( '
/
(. ( '
+ 6-
+ "- /
7 '(
( '
+ ,- #>#+ + ( '
/
(6 (6 ( 4 + (- $ /
#;+ 4.
'+ ( "
'( (. ( + - /
*
( (4 ,6 // #
=
/
Saroj Kumari Vs. State of Punjab, 1988 (3) PLR 123
'6 / .
<
/
?/ /
7
((4 /
(. ((4 + '- 1
/
/
+
! "
$
$ /
* / < / = / * /
/ / 3 /
/ /
+ <E
/ Chairman/Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Limited and Others Vs. Ram Gopal, (2021) 13 SCC 225
"16. Whilst it is true that limitation does not strictly apply to proceedings under Articles or of the Constitution of India, nevertheless, such rights cannot be enforced after an unreasonable lapse of time. Consideration of unexplained delays and inordinate laches would always be relevant in writ actions, and writ courts naturally ought to be reluctant in exercising their discretionary jurisdiction to protect those who have slept over wrongs and allowed illegalities to fester. Fence6 sitters cannot be allowed to barge into Courts and cry for their rights at their
9 convenience, and vigilant citizens ought not to be treated alike with mere opportunists. On multiple occasions, it has been restated that there are implicit limitations of time within which writ remedies can be enforced. In SS Balu v. State of Kerala, this Court observed thus:
"17. It is also well settled principle of law that "delay defeats equity". .... It is now a trite law that where the writ petitioner approaches the High Court after a long delay, reliefs prayed for may be denied to them on the ground of delay and laches irrespective of the fact that they are similarly situated to the other candidates who obtain the benefit of the judgment.""
)/ - Mrinmoy Maity Vs. Chhanda Koley and others, 2024 AIR SC 2717, <A
/ <
*
$ $
* /
/
,
$ State of Uttaranchal Vs. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari, (2013) 12 SCC 179
/ +0 <A
/ /
% )- !
: 9 / / /
$
(
$ Union of India and others Vs. M. K. Sarkar, (2010) 2 SCC 59 <A
/
@A @A ! /
!1
@A /+ /
/
5 A
*/ / /
* /
*
+0 <A
/ M.R. Gupta Vs. Union of India, (1995) 5 SCC 628
/
Saroj Kumari Vs. State of Punjab, 1998(3) SCT 664 is in service / *
/
7
/
/ % / / < /
1
/
% /
# < ceases to be in service
*
#& % *
/ 3
/ #+ Prem Nath Vs. State of Punjab, 2018(2) SCT 687
% *
& ; / "10. The reliance placed by counsel upon the judgment in Saroj Kumar's case, is wholly misplaced. The observations and aspect of delay in Saroj Kumar's case, were in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in M.R. Gupta v. Union of India and others, 1996(1) S.C.T 8 : 1995(4) RSJ 502. In M.R. Gupta's case (supra), it had been categorically held that so long as an employee "is in service" a fresh cause of action arises every month when he is getting his monthly salary on the basis of a wrong calculation made contrary to rules. It was further held that the claim to be awarded the correct salary on the basis of a proper pay fixation "is a right which subsists during the entire
* tenure of service"
11. In the present case, however, the petitioners choose not to agitate their claim while in service. It is much subsequent to their superannuation that they have woken up and seek to gain impetus from certain decisions that may have been rendered in the case of similarly situated employees."
)/ - / 3
% *
'
$
% *
$ /
/ )- ;
<
( (, ( .
vishnu ; %! F!5 ;
F!5