Harish Tandon, J. - (1.) The preliminary point taken by the learned Advocate representing the State respondents is that the writ petitioner is guilty of enormous delay in asserting her right and, therefore, the Writ Court should not exercise its discretion in entertaining the writ petition, but should dismiss the same at the threshold. To put it differently the State says that there is no explanation in the instant writ petition over the inordinate delay in approaching the Court and delay and laches being one of the grounds, when the Court should refuse to exercise its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ petition should be dismissed.
(2.) Several judgements are cited in support of the aforesaid contentions and the first and foremost judgement was relied upon by the State in case of New Delhi Municipal Council vs. Pan Singh & Ors., 2007 9 SCC 278. In paragraph 18 of the said Report it is held that the writ petition appears to have been filed after an enormous delay of 17 years claiming parity in the matter of granting scale of pay, which was extended to the other employees. In the above perspective it was held that having not agitated the grievances for such a long time, the Court should not entertain such writ petition. However, the Court noticed the other judgement of the Co-ordinate Bench rendered in case of Shiv Dass vs. Union of India, 2007 9 SCC 274; wherein it is held that if the cause of action pertains to pension, then such cause of action continues from month to month. It was further observed therein that though there was recurring cause of action, yet the Court cannot overlook the delay in filing the writ petition and the Court should examine whether there was any merit in the said case.
(3.) The aforesaid proposition of law laid down in Shiv Dass has not been doubted and disputed by the Co-ordinate Bench while delivering the judgement in case of Pan Singh . A further point is taken by the State that pension, being the contract, the person, who asserts violation of the terms of the contract, must approach the Court promptly and within a reasonable time. If the party slept over his right for a considerable period of time, the Court should refuse to exercise its discretion in entertaining such pleas.;