Synopsis

The petitioner, a former employee of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, challenged a circular dated 8th February 1989 by which his pay scale was reduced from Rs.1600-2660 to Rs.1400-2300. He filed the writ petition in 2019 – after a delay of nearly 30 years. The petitioner argued that he was preoccupied with departmental proceedings and subsequent litigations before the Civil Court and Labour Court, and therefore could not challenge the pay scale reduction earlier. The High Court dismissed the petition on the ground of inordinate and unexplained delay and laches. The court held that even though no limitation period is prescribed for writ petitions under Article 226, the petition must be filed within a reasonable time. A delay of 30 years, without valid explanation, disentitles the petitioner to any discretionary relief. The court also examined the merits and found that the petitioner had given an undertaking accepting the lower pay scale and had acquiesced to it throughout his service. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Court: High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad

Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice Maulik J. Shelat

Date of Judgment: 20th April 2026

Citation: R/Special Civil Application No. 13726 of 2019 (unreported)

Core Law: Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 (writ jurisdiction); Service law – pay scale fixation, delay and laches

2. Legal Framework

Major laws and provisions involved

• Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 (writ jurisdiction of High Courts)

• Service law principles – Pay scale fixation, retiral benefits, subsistence allowance during suspension

Key legal principles applied

Delay and laches in writ petitions: Although Article 226 does not prescribe a specific period of limitation, a writ petition must be filed within a reasonable time. What is reasonable depends on the facts of each case. In service matters, the Supreme Court in P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu (1975) 1 SCC 152 held that a person aggrieved by an order of promotion should approach the court within six months or at most one year.

Discretionary nature of writ jurisdiction: The High Court exercises extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction under Article 226. It does not ordinarily assist a tardy, indolent, acquiescent or lethargic litigant. If there is inordinate delay and the explanation is unsatisfactory, the court may decline to intervene even if a fundamental right is involved.

Two factors for delay and laches: The length of the delay and the nature of acts done during the interval that affect either party and cause a balance of justice or injustice. If third-party rights have accrued or if granting relief after decades would cause confusion and public inconvenience, the court will refuse relie

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.