Rights can’t be denied just because someone comes late to court: HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that a person’s rightful benefits cannot be snatched away simply because he approached the court late — unless he has slept over his rights so long that reopening the matter is no longer feasible.

The assertion came as Justice Jagmohan Bansal dismissed a widow’s plea for additional pension benefits linked to her husband’s military service rendered during the first and second National Emergency.

“The State cannot deprive a person of a vested right because of a non-deliberate delay,” Justice Bansal asserted, while making it clear that substantial justice should outweigh technicalities like delay whenever possible.

Justice Bansal ruled that “no hard and fast rule can be laid down” as to when the High Court should refuse to exercise its jurisdiction in favour of a party who initiated proceedings after considerable delay and was otherwise guilty of laches.

“Discretion must be exercised judiciously and reasonably. In the event that the claim made by the applicant is legally sustainable, delay should be condoned. Where illegality is manifest, it cannot be sustained on the sole ground of laches. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred,” the Bench asserted.

The ruling came in a case where the woman petitioner was granted dual pension, but the benefit of military service rendered by her husband during the first and second National Emergency was not granted.

Justice Bansal’s Bench was told that her husband retired from Punjab Police in 2004 and passed away in 2010, but never raised the claim himself. The widow approached the authorities only in 2021, nearly 20 years after the alleged cause of action.

Justice Bansal upheld the State’s stand while finding the claim to be delayed. The Bench observed that both the petitioner and her husband had by their conduct accepted the earlier position without protest. “There is no explanation for delay. The petitioner and her husband, by their act and conduct, acquiesced to the action of the respondent and at this belated stage want to make hay while the sun shines. The petitioner’s case is badly hit by the doctrine of delay and laches. This Court does not find it appropriate to invoke its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The present petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed,” the Court concluded.

Punjab