IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.22274 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : DECEMBER 15, 2010 NATHA SINGH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. BS Sodhi, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1. This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant selection grade to the petitioner. 2. The details of the case are not required to be given insomuch as the petition suffers from delay and laches. 3. It is the admitted position that the petitioner retired from Government High School, Charik, District Moga, on 31.5.2001, having joined the Education Department on 10.9.1964. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that one Zora Singh, who was serving as Art and Craft Teacher was also shown at same Civil Writ Petition No.22274 of 2010 2 seniority as the petitioner. Zora Singh was granted selection grade with effect from 1.2.1968 vide decision taken in 2000. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that although the petitioner has retired, however, the petitioner would be entitled to the same selection grade and the pension calculated accordingly. 5. I am of the opinion that the petition suffers from delay and laches. As per the case of the petitioner himself, the cause of action, if any, arose in February, 1968. The petitioner, however, remained dormant. The petitioner retired in the year 2001. Even if the claim of parity is required to be considered, Zora Singh was allowed the relief in 2000. 6. In U.P. Jal Nigam and another v. Jaswant Singh and another, (2006) 11 Supreme Court Cases 464, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held in the following terms:- “6. The question of delay and laches has been examined by this Court in a series of decisions and laches and delay has been considered to be an important factor in exercise of the discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. When a person who is not vigilant of his rights and acquiesces with the situation, can his writ petition be heard after a couple of years on the ground that same relief should be granted to him as was granted to person similarly situated who was vigilant about his rights ......... xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx 13. In view of the statement of law as summarized above, the respondents are guilty since the respondents has acquiesced in accepting the retirement and did not challenge the same in time. If they would have been vigilant enough, they could have filed writ petitions as others did in the matter. Civil Writ Petition No.22274 of 2010 3 Therefore, whenever it appears that the claimants lost time or while away and did not rise to the occasion in time for filing the writ petitions, then in such cases, the Court should be very slow in granting the relief to the incumbent. ............” 7. In view of the above, I find that the petition suffers from delay and laches and, therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 8. The petition is dismissed in limine. December 15, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?