Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (4.32 seconds)Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar & Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 12 November, 1973
40. To answer the above submission, it would be relevant to first
consider the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Ram Chandra
Shankar Deodhar (supra), wherein the Supreme Court held that the
rule of not enquiring into belated and stale claims is not a rule of law
but a rule of practice based on sound and proper exercise of discretion.
While there is no inviolable rule that whenever there is delay, the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 955/2017 & W.P.(C) 2882/2017 Page 13 of 18
By:RENUKA NEGI
Signing Date:12.06.2025
13:43:47
Court must necessarily refuse to entertain the petition, it would
depend on the facts of each case.
Ajay Kumar Shukla vs Arvind Rai on 8 December, 2021
In Ajay Kumar Shukla (supra), the Supreme Court, while
considering a plea seeking dismissal of a petition on delay and laches,
held that a period of 3 to 4 years would be reasonable to challenge a
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 955/2017 & W.P.(C) 2882/2017 Page 14 of 18
By:RENUKA NEGI
Signing Date:12.06.2025
13:43:47
seniority list and any challenge beyond the said period would require a
satisfactory explanation. It was, however, held that a seniority list
prepared contrary to the statutory provisions cannot be defended on
the ground of delay in challenging the same. On facts of that case, the
Supreme Court found that there was in fact no delay in the petitioners
approaching the High Court to challenge the Seniority List.
State Of U.P.& Ors vs Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors on 17 October, 2014
In Arvind Kumar Shrivastava (supra), the Supreme Court held
that as a normal rule, when a particular set of employees is given relief
by the Court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated
alike by extending that benefit. However, this principle is subject to
well-recognized exceptions in form of laches and delays as well as
acquiescence. Persons who do not challenge the wrongful actions in
their cases and acquiesce to the same, but wake up after a long delay
only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached
the Court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, cannot claim that
the benefit of the Judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated
persons be extended to them, unless they can show that the Judgment
pronounced by the Court was a Judgment in rem with the intention to
give benefit to all similarly situated persons whether they approached
the Court or not.
Maloon Lawrence Cecil D' Souza vs Union Of India & Ors on 1 May, 1975
26. The learned counsel for the intervenors, while adopting the
arguments made by the learned counsel for the respondents, further
submits that petitions disputing the long-standing seniority filed at a
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 955/2017 & W.P.(C) 2882/2017 Page 9 of 18
By:RENUKA NEGI
Signing Date:12.06.2025
13:43:47
belated stage should be rejected inasmuch as they seek to disturb the
vested rights of other persons. Reliance has been placed on the
Judgements of the Supreme Court in Malcom Lawrence Cecil
D'Souza vs. Union of India and Ors.,(1976) 1 SCC 599, and K.R.
Mudgal vs. R.P. Singh, (1986) 4 SCC 531, and that of this Court in
Prakash Singh vs. Union of India and Ors., 2016 SCC OnLine Del
3632, and in Ajay Kumar Awasthi and Ors. vs. Union of India, 2022
SCC OnLine Del 4216.
K.R. Mudgal & Ors vs R.P. Singh & Ors on 30 September, 1986
26. The learned counsel for the intervenors, while adopting the
arguments made by the learned counsel for the respondents, further
submits that petitions disputing the long-standing seniority filed at a
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 955/2017 & W.P.(C) 2882/2017 Page 9 of 18
By:RENUKA NEGI
Signing Date:12.06.2025
13:43:47
belated stage should be rejected inasmuch as they seek to disturb the
vested rights of other persons. Reliance has been placed on the
Judgements of the Supreme Court in Malcom Lawrence Cecil
D'Souza vs. Union of India and Ors.,(1976) 1 SCC 599, and K.R.
Mudgal vs. R.P. Singh, (1986) 4 SCC 531, and that of this Court in
Prakash Singh vs. Union of India and Ors., 2016 SCC OnLine Del
3632, and in Ajay Kumar Awasthi and Ors. vs. Union of India, 2022
SCC OnLine Del 4216.
Prakash Singh & Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 22 September, 2006
26. The learned counsel for the intervenors, while adopting the
arguments made by the learned counsel for the respondents, further
submits that petitions disputing the long-standing seniority filed at a
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 955/2017 & W.P.(C) 2882/2017 Page 9 of 18
By:RENUKA NEGI
Signing Date:12.06.2025
13:43:47
belated stage should be rejected inasmuch as they seek to disturb the
vested rights of other persons. Reliance has been placed on the
Judgements of the Supreme Court in Malcom Lawrence Cecil
D'Souza vs. Union of India and Ors.,(1976) 1 SCC 599, and K.R.
Mudgal vs. R.P. Singh, (1986) 4 SCC 531, and that of this Court in
Prakash Singh vs. Union of India and Ors., 2016 SCC OnLine Del
3632, and in Ajay Kumar Awasthi and Ors. vs. Union of India, 2022
SCC OnLine Del 4216.
Ajay Kumar Awasthi & Ors. vs Union Of India & Anr. on 2 December, 2022
26. The learned counsel for the intervenors, while adopting the
arguments made by the learned counsel for the respondents, further
submits that petitions disputing the long-standing seniority filed at a
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 955/2017 & W.P.(C) 2882/2017 Page 9 of 18
By:RENUKA NEGI
Signing Date:12.06.2025
13:43:47
belated stage should be rejected inasmuch as they seek to disturb the
vested rights of other persons. Reliance has been placed on the
Judgements of the Supreme Court in Malcom Lawrence Cecil
D'Souza vs. Union of India and Ors.,(1976) 1 SCC 599, and K.R.
Mudgal vs. R.P. Singh, (1986) 4 SCC 531, and that of this Court in
Prakash Singh vs. Union of India and Ors., 2016 SCC OnLine Del
3632, and in Ajay Kumar Awasthi and Ors. vs. Union of India, 2022
SCC OnLine Del 4216.
Union Of India & Ors vs M/S. Rai Bahadur Shree Ram Durga Prasad ... on 19 November, 1968
28. He further submits that in Union of India and Ors. vs. Prasant
Kumar Rai, 2024 SCC OnLine All 2722, the Allahabad High Court,
while interpreting SO 01/2009 and allowing the writ appeal filed by
the appellants therein, has held that the seniority of the respondents
therein being fixed with the subsequent training batch on account of
respondents having missed training with their original batch on
medical grounds, was correct. He states that the Special Leave Petition
thereagainst is still pending before the Supreme Court.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS