Stale Claims Cannot be Revived Through Repeated Representations: P&H High Court

Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, seeking his appointment as an Upper Division Clerk under the Freedom Fighter Category. Justice Namit Kumar’s ruling emphasized that Singh’s six-year delay in challenging the employment process rendered his claim invalid. The judgment underscores that prolonged delays and laches without justification preclude judicial intervention, especially when the appointments are long settled.

In 2015, the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) advertised vacancies for the post of Upper Division Clerk (UDC) under various categories, including the Freedom Fighter Category. Parminder Singh, the petitioner, applied under this category and scored 63.17 marks. Another candidate, Yogesh Sachdeva, who scored 75.37 marks, was appointed in the Freedom Fighter Category despite having scored higher than the last selected candidate in the General Category. Singh argued that Sachdeva should have been shifted to the General Category, which would have allowed Singh to secure the position under the Freedom Fighter Category.

The result was announced in 2018, but Singh only filed this petition in 2024 after a series of informal representations to the authorities. The six-year delay, combined with the lack of formal complaints until recently, was a critical factor in the court’s dismissal of Singh’s claim.

Justice Namit Kumar stressed that Singh’s six-year delay was “gross, inordinate, and unexplained,” making the claim stale. Referring to the principle that judicial discretion should not be exercised for claims pursued after significant delay, the court found that Singh’s informal representations could not revive a settled matter.

Citing Yunus (Baboobhai) A. Hamid Padvekar v. State of Maharashtra, Justice Kumar reiterated that delay without a satisfactory explanation is grounds for dismissal in Article 226 petitions, as the court must consider the public inconvenience caused by reopening settled matters.

The Court emphasized that repeated representations by the petitioner did not extend or revive the cause of action. The original cause of action was the announcement of the result in 2018, not Singh’s subsequent informal appeals.

Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Uttaranchal v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari, the Court noted that accepting repeated representations as a basis for fresh claims could “disrupt public administration” and burden the judicial system with stale claims.

Justice Kumar highlighted the adverse effects of reopening settled employment positions. By waiting until 2024, Singh created a risk of undue hardship for candidates already appointed and settled in their roles. Allowing his claim at this stage would likely cause unnecessary disruption, contravening the interests of judicial fairness and administrative stability.

The judgment drew upon Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana, wherein the court stressed that judicial relief cannot be granted if it disrupts settled matters or unduly affects other parties who have relied on previous decisions.

Emphasizing that timely pursuit of claims is fundamental in law, the Court underscored that “those who sleep over their rights are bound to suffer.” Singh’s decision to delay legal action effectively signaled acquiescence to the status quo, nullifying his entitlement to a remedy.
Referencing the Supreme Court’s observations in State of T.N. v. Seshachalam, the Court noted that delay and laches create a presumption of acceptance, particularly in cases involving public employment and appointments.

On Judicial Reluctance in Delayed Claims: “Judicial intervention is not warranted when there is an inordinate, unexplained delay, as reopening settled matters would lead to undue hardship and administrative disruption.”

On the Consequences of Repeated Representations: “Repeated representations cannot revive a stale claim; the cause of action must be assessed with reference to the original event, not subsequent communications.”

The Court dismissed Parminder Singh’s petition on grounds of delay and laches, denying his claim to be appointed under the Freedom Fighter Category for the post of Upper Division Clerk. Justice Kumar’s decision reinforces the principle that employment-related claims must be pursued diligently and within a reasonable timeframe to ensure fair and efficient judicial processes.

This judgment serves as a caution for claimants in public employment cases, highlighting the importance of timely action and the limited scope for judicial relief when delays are unexplained. By upholding principles of administrative stability and discouraging delayed litigation, the Court reaffirms that judicial remedies are contingent on prompt and proactive legal pursuit.

Date of Decision: October 18, 2024