Cannot Indulge Those Who Compete With 'Kumbhkarna', Delay Invites Disaster: Patna HC Dismisses Appeal In Service Regularisation Claim
The Patna High Court has reiterated that mere filing of representations does not extend limitation, holding that courts will not entertain belated claims where a litigant has approached after inordinate delay, and dismissed an intra-court appeal seeking regularisation of service.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Harish Kumar was hearing a Letters Patent Appeal challenging the order dated 24.06.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge, which had disposed of the writ petition granting liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the competent authority.
The original writ petition had been filed seeking the quashing of orders refusing to regularise the petitioner's service as a work charge employee and for grant of consequential pensionary benefits.
The petitioner claimed that he had been appointed as Work Supervisor Grade II in 1973 and had continued in service till his retirement in 2012. He contended that despite being similarly situated to other employees who had been granted regularisation, he was denied the same, resulting in discrimination.
The State opposed the claim, submitting that the writ petition had been filed after an inordinate delay of over a decade following retirement, and that the petitioner had remained absent from duty for prolonged periods, amounting to over 12 years, which disentitled him to any such relief.
Before the Division Bench, the appellant argued that he had been continuously pursuing his claim through representations and was entitled to regularisation and pensionary benefits. The Court, however, framed the issue around delay and laches, and emphasised that a litigant must approach the Court within a reasonable time.
Relying on P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu (1975) 1 SCC 152, the Court reiterated that in service matters, an aggrieved party is expected to approach the Court within six months or at most one year of the cause of action. The Court noted:
“It is the settled law that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the Court at his own leisure or pleasure, the Court would be under legal obligation to scrutinize whether the belated approach should be entertained or not. Inordinate delay would invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the Court…Remaining innocuously oblivious to the delay does not foster the cause of justice, on the contrary it brings injustice and it is likely to affect others. A Court is not expected to give indulgence to the indolent persons who compete with Kumbhkarana and the delay does not deserve any indulgence and on that ground alone, the writ Court can throw the petition overboard at the very threshold.”
The Court also clarified that mere representations do not extend the period of limitation, and entertaining such stale claims would impede the functioning of courts and cause injustice to others.
On facts, the Court noted that the petitioner had approached the Court nearly 13 years after retirement and had also remained absent from service for prolonged periods. In view of the above, the Court held that no case for interference was made out in appellate jurisdiction and found no illegality or perversity in the order of the Single Judge.
Accordingly, the Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed.
Case Title: Raj Kumar Jha v. State of Bihar and Ors.
Case No.: Letters Patent Appeal No. 762 of 2025 (in CWJC No. 9626 of 2025).
Appearance: Mr. Braj Kishore Singh appeared for the Appellant. Mr. Anjani Kumar appeared for the Respondent.