Mukesh v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Judgment

#1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner on the post of part time sweeper, whereas, the petitioner was illegally dispensed with from the service without providing opportunity of hearing, even no discharge letter issued to the petitioner till date. Further, directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner on the basis of equity as number of similarly situated candidates have already been regularized, even the number of regular post are lying vacant and the petitioner is fully entitled to regularize in view of all policies as mentioned in this writ petition. Further, directing the respondents to take appropriate decision on the legal notice dated 30.06.2025 (Annexure P-4) served by the petitioner.

#2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner was appointed as a part time Sweeper on 11.10.1995 at Government Primary School, Hirmathla through a due process of selection. It is submitted CWP-5467-2026 -2- that the petitioner discharged his duties diligently for several years and his service record remained unblemished. However, his services were illegally dispensed with. Thereafter, despite making repeated requests for reinstatement through visists and also by submitting a representation dated 10.02.2006 (Annexure P-2), no action was taken by the respondents. It is further submitted that on 17.01.2025, the respondents prepared a list of Class-IV employees for regularization in which the name of the petitioner appears at Serial No.380 as discernible from Annexure P-3. The petitioner, thereafter, served a legal notice on 30.06.2025 (Annexure P-4), which has also remained unheeded. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner's services were dispensed with without following the principles of natural justice as neither any show cause notice nor any order of discharge was ever issued to him. It is also contended that the petitioner has been subjected to discrimination as similarly situated employees have been regularized.

#3. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the claim of the petitioner for regularization cannot be considered as there exists no relationship of employee and employer between the petitioner and the respondents as the service of the petitioner was dispensed in the year 2005. It is further submitted that the petitioner was only a part time employee and has not even placed on record his appointment letter. He further submits that the petitioner has approached this Court after a delay of about 21 years from the date his services were dispensed with. As such, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. CWP-5467-2026 -3-

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the petitioner claims to have been appointed as a part time Sweeper in the year 1995 and that his services were dispensed with in the year 2005. Admittedly, the petitioner remained indolent for more than two decades. It is only after the issuance of letter dated

17.01.2025 (Annexure P-3) regarding preparation of the list of Class-IV employees for regularization that the petitioner served a legal notice dated

30.06.2025 (Annexure P-4) and, thereafter, approached this Court. Further, the claim raised by the petitioner is highly belated. Moreover, the petitioner's claim for regularization cannot be considered at this stage as no jural relationship of employer and employee subsists between the petitioner and the respondents.

#5. It is trite law that the delay in approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be condoned if sufficient cause is indicated or a reasonable explanation is provided for the same. However, the facts of the matter at hand indicate otherwise. Learned counsel petitioner has failed to specify any compelling or extenuating circumstance which prevented him/her from approaching this Court for such a long time. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by a three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chairman/Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Limited and Others vs. Ram Gopal (2021) 13 SCC 225, wherein, the following was held: “16. Whilst it is true that limitation does not strictly apply to proceedings under Articles 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India, nevertheless, such rights cannot be enforced after an unreasonable lapse of time. Consideration of unexplained delays CWP-5467-2026 -4- 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. Fence- sitters cannot be allowed to barge into Courts and cry for their rights at their 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 after a long petitioner approaches the High 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.”” (emphasis added) Court

#6. Further, in Mrinmoy Maity vs. Chhanda Koley and others 2024 AIR SC 2717, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically observed that the High Courts must factor in the delay, while exercising its discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was further opined that undue and unexplained delay may be reason enough to dismiss a petition as indolent litigants ought not to be encouraged by writ Courts.

#7. In State of Uttaranchal v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari, (2013) 12 SCC 179, while considering the issue regarding delay and laches and referring to earlier judgments on the issue, a Two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that repeated representations made will not keep the issues alive. A stale or a dead issue/dispute cannot be got revived even if such a CWP-5467-2026 -5- representation has either been decided by the authority or got decided by getting a direction from the court as the issue regarding delay and laches is to be decided with reference to original cause of action and not with reference to any such order passed. Delay and laches on the part of a government servant may deprive him of the benefit which had been given to others. Article 14 of the Constitution of India, in a situation of that nature, will not be attracted as it is well settled that law leans in favour of those who are alert and vigilant.

#8. In Union of India and others v. M. K. Sarkar, (2010) 2 SCC 59, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has ruled that when a belated representation in regard to a ‘stale’ or ‘dead’ issue/dispute is considered and decided, in compliance with a direction by the court/tribunal to do so, the date of such decision cannot be considered as furnishing a fresh cause of action for reviving the ‘dead’ issue or time-barred dispute. The issue of limitation or delay and laches should be considered with reference to the original cause of action and not with reference to the date on which an order is passed in compliance with a Court’s direction. Neither a court’s direction to consider a representation issued without examining the merits, nor a decision given in compliance with such direction, will extend the limitation, or erase the delay and laches.

#9. In the present case, the petitioner has approached this Court after a considerable lapse of time. Repeated representations will not keep the issues alive and no plausible explanation has been offered by learned counsel for the petitioner for the delay in filing the present petition. CWP-5467-2026 -6-

#10. In view of the discussion above, this Court does not find it appropriate to invoke its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE

07.07.2026 Neha Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No