Bijendra Kumar Kaushik vs District Judge, Exercising The Powers Of Educational Tribunal For Educational Institutions At Karnal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

108
CWP No.29516 of 2026
Date of Decision: 11.09.2026


Bijendra Kumar Kaushik .....Petitioner
VERSUS
District and Sessions Judge and others …..Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Present : Petitioner-in-person.
*

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India for issuance of writs in the nature of certiorari , mandamus ,
prohibition etc. against the order dated 06.03.2019 (Annexure P1), partly allowed
by respondent No.1-Educational Tribunal, Karnal, praying for grant of interest on
consequential benefits allowed by Tribunal wherein execution for the same is
pending. Further prayer has been made to direct the respondents to make payment
of interest since 27.04.2013 @ 12% per annum on consequential benefits of
Rs.73,38,436/- from the date it was due to the date of part payment made by
respondents from time to time, and to be paid accordingly.
2. The petitioner, appearing in person, inter alia , contends that he served
respondent No.2 as a Lecturer in Physics for about 20 years, whereafter his services
were terminated vide order dated 31.07.2014 on flimsy grounds. The petitioner
challenged the termination order before the Educational Tribunal, Karnal, and his
claim was allowed vide order dated 06.03.2019 (Annexure P1), whereby the
OMKAR SINGH
2026.09.15 17:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh

-2-
CWP-29516-2026

termination order was set aside and the respondents were directed to release the
consequential benefits within three months. CWP No.14111 of 2019, preferred by
the respondents against the said order, was dismissed by this Court. LPA No.1534
of 2023 was also dismissed on 24.01.2024, and the Special Leave Petition preferred
thereafter was dismissed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court on 04.12.2024, as is
discernible from Annexure P2. It is further submitted that although the respondents
released the consequential benefits in instalments from time to time, the
.
Educational Tribunal did not award interest on the delayed payment Accordingly,
the petitioner claims interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the consequential
benefits amounting to ₹73,38,436/-.
3. Having heard the petitioner in person and upon perusal of the record,
it transpires that, while challenging the termination order dated 31.07.2014 before
the Educational Tribunal, the petitioner had also claimed interest at the rate of 18%
per annum on the salary payable for the suspension period. Vide the impugned
order dated 06.03.2019, the Educational Tribunal, Karnal set aside the termination
order and granted consequential benefits; however, no interest thereon was
awarded. The petitioner did not challenge the said order to the extent of non-grant
of interest within a reasonable period. Having accepted the order and allowed it to
attain finality, he has now, after an unexplained delay of more than seven and a half
years, invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court to claim interest at the rate of 12%
per annum. The relief sought is, therefore, barred by delay and laches.
4. Further, no plausible explanation is forthcoming for the delay in filing
the present petition. 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
OMKAR SINGH
2026.09.15 17:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh

-3-
CWP-29516-2026

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 Hon’ble the Supreme Court in
Chairman/Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Limited and others v.
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 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 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. ”
( emphasis added )
5. Further, in Mrinmoy Maity vs. Chhanda Koley and others 2024 AIR
SC 2717, Hon’ble the 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
OMKAR SINGH
2026.09.15 17:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh

-4-
CWP-29516-2026

ought not to be encouraged by writ Courts.
6. In the present case, the petitioner has approached this Court after a
considerable lapse of time. Admittedly, the petitioner has not challenged the order
dated 06.03.2019 passed by the Educational Tribunal, Karnal and now by invoking
the writ jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner is seeking the relief, which is hit
by the vice of delay and laches.
7. In view of the discussion in the foregoing paras, this Court does not
find it appropriate to invoke its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.
8. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.

( HARPREET SINGH BRAR )
September 11 , 2026. JUDGE
‘om’

Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No
Whether Reportable. : Yes/No
OMKAR SINGH
2026.09.15 17:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh