An unexplained 22-year delay in claiming unpaid salary defeats discretionary writ relief.

The petitioner, appointed as a Laboratory Assistant on 2 August 1971 and retired on 30 November 2014, claimed approximately ₹1,00,000 in unpaid salary for the 2004–05 academic year.

He alleged that his salary was withheld after a copying malpractice case led to cancellation of his school’s recognition for that year.

He maintained that the school remained recognised for Classes 9 and 11, where he taught, and relied on proceedings in which the school’s recognition was restored for Classes 10 and 12.

He sought payment with 12% interest.

The State opposed the petition.

The Court noted that the petition was filed nearly 22 years after the claimed non-payment, that the petitioner had not specifically explained the delay, and that the school had not been joined as a party.

1. Whether the petitioner’s claim for unpaid salary for 2004–05 could be considered under Article 226 despite the nearly 22-year delay and absence of a satisfactory explanation.

2. Whether the petitioner’s representations, including the representation dated 21 September 2026, justified entertaining the stale claim.

Article 226 relief is discretionary, and a High Court may decline to exercise its jurisdiction where a claimant’s delay or neglect, considered alongside the circumstances, makes relief inequitable.

Delay and laches are relevant to equitable relief; a litigant who has slept on a right is not ordinarily entitled to discretionary relief, and a later judgment in another person’s case does not by itself explain the delay.

Merely submitting a representation, or its non-consideration, does not provide a valid ground for condoning delay.

The salary claim concerned the 2004–05 academic year, but the petitioner approached the Court only after nearly 22 years and did not specifically explain that delay in the petition.

His reliance on representations did not cure the delay; the Court found that only one representation, dated 21 September 2026, was on record and that its non-consideration was not a sufficient explanation.

In the absence of a satisfactory basis to entertain the stale claim, the Court declined to examine it for relief under Article 226.

It dismissed the writ petition, leaving the petitioner without the requested unpaid salary and interest.