Writ courts will refuse discretionary relief to indolent litigants raising stale claims after inordinate and unexplained delay.

The petitioner was originally employed by the Naroda Nagar Panchayat in 1968

Following a government notification, the Panchayat merged with the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) on March 1, 1986

The petitioner was absorbed as a Head Clerk

In 1989, the AMC issued Circular No. 2765, substituting the petitioner’s pay scale from Rs. 1600-2660 to Rs. 1400-2300

The petitioner was aware of this change in 1989, as evidenced by his correspondence at the time

Although the petitioner was involved in departmental inquiries and subsequent litigation regarding his suspension, he did not challenge the pay scale reduction for thirty years

He retired in 2016 and received his retiral benefits in 2018

In 2019, he filed the present petition seeking to quash the 1989 circular and recover arrears with interest

1. Whether the writ petition is barred by the doctrine of delay and laches due to the thirty-year interval between the cause of action and the filing of the petition

2. Whether the respondent-Corporation’s decision to reduce the petitioner's pay scale was legally sustainable in light of the service records and the petitioner's undertaking

The court emphasized that while Article 226 of the Constitution does not prescribe a strict period of limitation, discretionary relief is unavailable to indolent litigants who sleep over their rights

The court relied on the doctrine of "Delay and Laches" as settled in State of Orissa v. Laxmi Narayan Das, P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, and Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. T.T. Murali Babu

Courts should not assist those who approach the court at their own "leisure or pleasure"

The principle of acquiescence and estoppel applied, as the petitioner had signed an undertaking agreeing to the pay scale and allowed the Corporation to correct any excess payments

The court found the thirty-year delay "huge and inordinate," rejecting the petitioner’s explanation that pending departmental litigation prevented him from filing

It noted that the petitioner accepted subsistence allowance and revised pay based on the substituted scale without protest throughout his service until retirement

Applying the "Rip Van Winkle" analogy, the court held that the claim had become "stale"

On the merits, the court examined additional affidavits and service records showing that the AMC had corrected an erroneous pay fixation made by the erstwhile Nagar Panchayat

Crucially, the court highlighted that the petitioner had signed an undertaking agreeing to the Rs. 1400-2300 scale and had even cited that specific scale in his own leave applications during his tenure

Thus, the petitioner was estopped from challenging the fixation decades later.

The court held that no discretionary relief could be granted to a litigant who remained silent for three decades

The impugned Circular No. 2765 was found to be a valid correction of a prior erroneous fixation, supported by the petitioner’s own undertaking and conduct

Rule was discharged with no order as to costs