IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.18690 of 2011 Date of decision : 3.10.2011 HC Satpal ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present: Mr.S.S.Dinarpur, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioner by way of the instant writ petition has challenged the order dated 3.5.2006 vide which the promotion which was initially granted to him on 14.3.2006 has been annulled and the benefits withdrawn. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was recruited as Constable on 9.4.1992 on the basis of his performance in sports and in the year 2001 by virtue of an amendment in Rule 13.7 of the Punjab Police Rules it was stipulated that 55% seats will be reserved for B-1 course on the basis of test, 35% on the basis of seniority- cum-fitness and 10% seats would remain reserved for sports quota and outstanding performance. The petitioner falls in the category of outstanding sportsman and set up a plea that he was entitled to be sent for Lower School Course in 42th batch in the year 2003-04, which claim was not accepted and subsequently in next batch also he was C.W.P.No.18690 of 2011 -2- not accommodated. Eventually he passed the Lower School Course and his name was brought on C-1 list. He was transferred to Gurgaon Range from Ambala Range by virtue of order dated 6.1.2006 along with number of other Constables. The petitioner pursuant to this order joined his duty at Gurgaon Range. Some of the Constables who were transferred along with the petitioner filed CWP No.2236 of 2006 which benefit has been withdrawn vide the impugned order Annexure P-4 dated 3.5.2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner makes a grievance of the order being non-speaking. On due consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that it is too late in the day for the petitioner to question the order which was passed on 3.5.2006. A period of 5 years having elapsed the said order and the effect thereof cannot be offset, more so when there is neither any cogent explanation for the delay of making a grievance against the order which substantially affected the rights of the petitioner. It is a settled proposition of service jurisprudence that a person who is aggrieved of an action of the respondents has to approach the courts at an earliest point of time and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in certain pronouncements has stated that generally a period of one year should be considered as just and appropriate for a person to raise a grievance. Although there would not be a strict rule regarding the appreciation of a grievance raised belatedly, yet the period of five years is too substantial in nature to be ignored and especially when there are no redeeming features expressed in the C.W.P.No.18690 of 2011 -3- petition which could prompt the court to overlook such a delay. Dismissed. 3.10.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss