Inordinate, unexplained delay warrants refusal of writ relief on stale seniority claims.

The petitioner claimed that his service should be reckoned from 1 September 1981, when he was engaged as a daily wager, rather than from 2 July 1992, when his services were regularised.

He also claimed that his passing the Senior Accounts Clerk Examination in 2010 had not been recorded in his service book.

After this Court, in an earlier writ petition, permitted him to submit a representation, the respondents rejected it on 11 January 2019, stating that daily-wage service could not count for seniority.

The petitioner filed the present petition in 2026, seeking, among other reliefs, revised seniority and consequential service and pensionary benefits; he did not challenge the 2019 rejection order.

Whether the petitioner’s claim for seniority and consequential benefits, brought more than six years after rejection of his representation and without challenging that rejection, should be entertained under Article 226.

Whether the petitioner had provided a satisfactory explanation or exceptional circumstance warranting the Court to overlook the delay and laches.

A petition under Article 226 must be brought with due diligence and within a reasonable time; although no fixed limitation period governs writ petitions, the Court may refuse discretionary relief where a litigant delays unreasonably and seeks to revive a stale claim.

In State of Uttaranchal v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari, (2013) 12 SCC 179, the Supreme Court reiterated that stale claims for promotional benefits should not ordinarily be entertained and that delay and laches are relevant to the exercise of writ jurisdiction.

The Court also referred to NDMC v. Pan Singh, (2007) 9 SCC 278, and P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1975) 1 SCC 152, on the requirement to seek relief within a reasonable time.

The petitioner’s representation had been rejected in January 2019, but he waited until 2026 to approach the Court and did not challenge the rejection order.

His claim concerned service dating back to 1981, and he offered no satisfactory explanation for the prolonged inaction or exceptional circumstance justifying the delay.

Applying the principles of delay and laches, the Court held that entertaining the petition would improperly revive a stale claim and declined to exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction.

It dismissed the writ petition in limine on the ground of delay and laches.