***

AJAY MOHAN GOEL, J. (ORAL) –

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-

i) “Issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents to release the Grant-in-aid in favour of the petitioner w.e.f. 11.08.2008 to 31.03.2009 alongwith upto date interest as per the Annexure P-3 in the interest of justice and fair play.

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to decide the representation dated 04.08.2025 i.e. Annexure P-4 within time bound manner in the interest of justice and fair play.”

2. The prayer of the petitioner is for issuance of direction to the respondents to release grant-in-aid in favour of the petitioner as due from 11.08.2008 upto 31.03.2009. For the recovery of this amount which was due in between the months of August, 2008 and March 200, the petitioner has filed this writ petition in the year 2026. Before this petition, though, a representation was also filed, but said representation was also filed in the month of August, 2025.

3. On the query put to the learned counsel to explain delay and laches, no satisfactory explanation was be given save and except that the wrong was a continuing wrong.

4. In the light of the fact that the petitioner is praying for the release of grant-in-aid, which was due in between the month of August 2008 and 31.03.2009, the petitioner should have approached this Court immediately after the cause of action arose or within some reasonable time thereafter.

5. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India and others versus Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 648, has been pleased to hold that a belated service claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal).

6. As per the Hon’ble Supreme Court, one of the exceptions to the said rule is relating to a continuing wrong and Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held that where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced. Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held in said judgment that this of course is subject to certain exception like re-opening of the issue affecting settled rights of third parties is not permitted and further if the issue relates to payment or refixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affects the rights of third parties, but in a consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period, though the principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply, but the High Courts will restrict the consequential relief relating to arrears normally to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition.

7. In the present case, the arrears relate to the period in between 11.08.2008 to 31.03.2009, meaning thereby that whatever was due to the petitioner was due to upto 31.03.2009. The petition has been filed on 18.05.2026. Even if it is to be construed that the cause alleged by the petitioner is a continuing one, then, also no relief can be granted to the petitioner qua the arrears preceding three years before the filing of the writ petition.

8. In the present case, as nothing was due to the petitioner in between the period which intervenes three years before the filing of the writ petition, because, whatever was due to the petitioner was as upto 31.03.2009, the petition being hit by delay and laches is dismissed.

9. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

Petition dismissed.

********