State of Punjab & Ors. v. KULDEEP TIWARI

The petitioner, by way of instant writ petition filed under The petitioner, by way of instant Articles 226 226/227 of the Constitution of India,

of the Constitution of India, seeks quashing of the order 5), vide which, he was reverted from the dated 02.12.2016 (Annexure P-5), vide which, he was reverted from the 5), vide which, he was reverted from the dated 02.12.2016 (Annexure P post of Pump Operator (Class-III) to Helper (Class post of Pump Operator ( IV), and restoration III) to Helper (Class-IV), and restoration of his original promotion his original promotion order dated 31.08.2015 (Annex 2), along dated 31.08.2015 (Annexure P-2), along with all consequential benefits. with all consequential benefits.

At the very outset, this Court pose a specific query to the this Court posed a specific query to the learned counsel for the petitioner, as to why, learned counsel for the petitioner, about a as to why, the petitioner took about a decade to challenge the order (supra). In response, decade to challenge the order (supra). ssible In response, he made all possible endeavour to persuade this Court that the delay occurred in impugning endeavour to persuade this Court that the delay occurred in impugning endeavour to persuade this Court that the delay occurred in impugning endeavour to persuade this Court that the delay occurred in impugning the order is on account of bonafide reasons. it is evident that reasons. However, it is evident that the petition at hand sans any plausible reason, which could justify the petition at hand sans any plausible reason, which could justify the sans any plausible reason, which could justify the inordinate delay of about 10 years in approaching this Court, inordinate delay of about 10 years a in approaching this Court, except a reference to the decisions drawn by the Hon’ble Supreme Court In such decisions drawn by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In such a situation, this Court finds no good reason to a situation, this Court the gross, no good reason to overlook the gross, Further, inordinate and unexplained delay, and proceed with the matter. Further, inordinate and unexplained delay, and proceed with the matter. inordinate and unexplained delay, and proceed with the matter. the petitioner had moved the authorities concerned, vide a legal though the petitioner had moved the authorities concerned, vide a legal the petitioner had moved the authorities concerned, vide a legal the petitioner had moved the authorities concerned, vide a legal notice, as regards his grievances which are raised before this Court, notice, as regards his grievances which are raised before this Court, notice, as regards his grievances which are raised before this Court, notice, as regards his grievances which are raised before this Court,

which was responded to by the authorities, vide Annexure P-6. which was responded to by the authorities, vide Annexure P which was responded to by the authorities, vide Annexure P Apparently, it seems that the petitioner ha Apparently, it seems that resurrect the petitioner has made an attempt to resurrect CWP-16827 16827-2026 -2- the dead claim, and to take a plea before this Court that the dead he had been before this Court that he had been pursuing his cause diligently. pursuing his cause diligently.

At this juncture, it is inevitable with the it is inevitable to record that, with the nd it has of time, the law of limitation has evolved considerably and it has of time, the law of limitation has evolved considerably a passage of time, the law of limitation has evolved considerably a been accepted that it may harshly affect a particular party, but it has to be been accepted that it may harshly affect a particular party, but it has to be been accepted that it may harshly affect a particular party, but it has to be been accepted that it may harshly affect a particular party, but it has to be . The Court shall not use its powers to extend applied with all its rigors. The Court shall not use its powers to extend . The Court shall not use its powers to extend applied with all its the limitation on equitable grounds. The provisions of the Limitation Act the limitation on equitable grounds. The provisions of the Limitation Act the limitation on equitable grounds. The provisions of the Limitation Act the limitation on equitable grounds. The provisions of the Limitation Act y construed, which will frustrate its very purpose. The may not be liberally construed, which will frustrate its very purpose. The y construed, which will frustrate its very purpose. The may not be liberall Court has to adopt a pragmatic and rational approach, while dealing with Court has to adopt a pragmatic and rational approach, while dealing with Court has to adopt a pragmatic and rational approach, while dealing with Court has to adopt a pragmatic and rational approach, while dealing with the contention of delay. The Court is required the contention of delay. The Court to delve into the issue, as is required to delve into the issue, as and only thereafter, to whether, the delay has been validly explained, and only thereafter, to whether, the delay has been validly explained, to whether, the delay has been validly explained, shall arrive at a decision, which, otherwise has attained finality. shall arrive at a decision, which, otherwise has attained finality. shall arrive at a decision, which, otherwise has attained finality.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, pronouncement in he Hon’ble Supreme Court, through a pronouncement in N. Balakrishnan v. `M. Krishnamurty AIR 1998 SC 3222 N. Balakrishnan v. , while putting M. Krishnamurty AIR 1998 SC 3222, while putting he law of limitation is founded on in a narrow compass, interprets that the law of limitation is founded on he law of limitation is founded on in a narrow compass, interprets that t reipublicae interest ut sits public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim reipublicae interest ut sits public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). finis litium Further, the rules of limitations are not meant to destroy the righ Further, the r ts of the ules of limitations are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties, but , but to ensure that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics and avail that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics and avail their remedy promptly.

As referred to above, the is not only , the present petition is not only , but the petitioner has also suffering from gross and inordinate delay, but the petitioner has also suffering from gross and inordinate delay suffering from gross and inordinate delay failed to explain the valid reasons, which restrained him from assailing failed to explain the valid reasons, which restrained him from assailing failed to explain the valid reasons, which restrained him from assailing failed to explain the valid reasons, which restrained him from assailing the order all these years. It is a settled settled proposition of law that delay defeats equity, equity, and a person who approaches approaches the Court belatedly, or sleeps over over his rights for a considerable period period of time, is not entitled to invoke the the writ jurisdiction to claim extraordinary extraordinary relief. This issue has already been been examined by the Hon’ble “Mrinmoy Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Mrinmoy Maity Vs.