Delay and laches do not bar writ jurisdiction where injustice outweighs technical defaults in compassionate benefit claims.

The petitioner’s husband, a Helper at NHPC, died in harness on 29.07.2006.

The petitioner sought a lump sum payment in lieu of compassionate appointment under a 2005 Scheme, along with EPF, gratuity, and insurance benefits.

The respondents rejected the claim for lump sum payment via communications in 2007 and 2008, citing that the application was filed on 21.09.2007, exceeding the one-year limitation from the date of death, and that the scheme had since been replaced.

The respondents also raised preliminary objections regarding territorial jurisdiction (as death occurred in Arunachal Pradesh) and delay/laches (11-year gap in filing).

Whether the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition when the death and initial rejection occurred outside its territory.

Whether the writ petition is barred by delay and laches given the decade-long gap between the rejection of the claim and the filing of the petition.

Whether the petitioner is entitled to the lump sum payment scheme that was in vogue at the time of her husband's death despite filing the application after the scheme was replaced.

The Court applied Article 226 of the Constitution of India, noting its "comprehensive phraseology" to reach injustice wherever found.

It relied on *M/s Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd v. Union of India* regarding the "situs of cause of action," holding that even a fraction of the cause of action arising within a court's limits confers jurisdiction.

Regarding delay, the Court applied *Shiv Dass v. Union of India*, which establishes that delay is not an absolute bar but a matter of judicial discretion based on the "balance of justice".

It also referenced the principle that the relevant date for compassionate benefits is the date of the employee's death, as seen in *State of Himachal Pradesh v. Parkash Chand*.

The Court found territorial jurisdiction existed because the petitioner received communications and partial EPF payments at her Samba (J&K) address and bank account, constituting a "fraction of the cause of action".

Regarding delay, the Court exercised its discretion in favor of the petitioner, noting her status as an illiterate widow from an economically weaker section who lacked legal resources.

On the merits, the Court rejected the respondents' argument that the 2005 Scheme had expired; since the husband died while the scheme was active, that scheme governed the rights of the spouse.

While the application was filed 14 months after the death (exceeding the 12-month limit), the Court noted the respondents only informed her of the scheme in late 2006, meaning the limitation should run from the date of information, not death.

Furthermore, the Court observed that the NHPC Chairman had powers to relax rules under Clause 6.1 of the Scheme.

The Court set aside the rejection and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner’s claim for lump sum compensation under the 2005 Scheme by granting a relaxation for the filing period.

The exercise must be completed within three months, though no interest was awarded due to the belated approach to the court.

The petition was allowed.