Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) LIST revised. None appears for the petitioners to press this petition. I have perused the record.
(2.) THE petitioner has sought the following reliefs: "i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to accord all promotional benefits and emoluments accordingly to the petitioner as Traffic Inspector Grade II, Traffic Inspector Grade I and as Senior Station In charge, with effect from 5.7.1974, 5.5.1978 and 12.2.1990 respectively; ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to carry out the direction contained in the order dated 16.5.1981 and to give all benefits of promotional post to the petitioner on or before the date on which the said benefits have been accorded to the junior employee Sri Chandra Shekhar Tripathi from whom the petitioner has categorically been held to be senior and entitled to the benefits; iii) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to issue a formal letter of promotion to the petitioner on the post of Senior Station Incharge or to consider him for promotion on the aforesaid post; iii) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 22.11.1983 and the repeated reminders thereof; iv) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to issue a formal letter of promotion to the petitioner on the post of Senior Station Incharge or to consider him for promotion on the aforesaid post; It appears that the petitioner was claiming higher pay scale/promotion which was allowed to junior as long back as in 1974 and 1978. The cause of action to the petitioner admittedly arose in 1974 and 1978 and in any case, in 1981 and 1982 but the present writ petition has been filed in the year 1992, i.e., after almost ten years. The only justification for the said delay was that the petitioner made representation on 22.11.1983 but the same was not decided. Mere sending a representation and that too non-statutory and even thereafter not approaching the appropriate forum for almost ten years, I do not find any valid justification for extraordinary delay in filing this writ petition. Delay and laches are serious matter to be taken into account while entertaining writ petition or granting relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. From the facts it is evident that the petitioner is guilty of undue delay and laches which are relevant factors in exercising equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Following the cases of Government of West Bengal Vs. Tarun K. Roy and others 2004(1) SCC 347 and Chairman U.P. Jal Nigam and another Vs. Jaswant Singh and another 2006(11) SCC 464, the Apex Court in New Delhi Municipal Council Vs. Pan Singh and others J.T.2007(4) SC 253, observed that after a long time the writ petition should not have been entertained even if the petitioners are similarly situated and discretionary jurisdiction may not be exercised in favour of those who approached the Court after a long time. It was held that delay and laches were relevant factors for exercise of equitable jurisdiction. In M/S Lipton India Ltd. And others vs. Union of India and others, J.T. 1994(6) SC 71 and M.R. Gupta Vs. Union of India and others 1995(5) SCC 628 it was held that though there was no period of limitation provided for filing a petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, ordinarily a writ petition should be filed within reasonable time. In K.V. Rajalakshmiah Setty Vs. State of Mysore, AIR 1961 SC 993, it was said that representation would not be adequate explanation to take care of delay. Same view was reiterated in State of Orissa Vs. Pyari Mohan Samantaray and others AIR 1976 SC 2617 and State of Orissa and others Vs. Arun Kumar Patnaik and others 1976(3) SCC 579 and the said view has also been followed recently in Shiv Dass Vs. Union of India and others AIR 2007 SC 1330= 2007(1) Supreme 455 and New Delhi Municipal Council (supra).
(3.) FOLLOWING the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases this Court has taken the same view in Chunvad Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2008(4) ESC 2423=2008(7) ADJ 444. In the case in hand, the petitioner is guilty of undue long delay and laches which has not been satisfactory explained. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed. Interim order if any, shall stand vacated.;