Dismissed¶51

Amar Singh v. Union of India & Anr.

Delay and laches – writ under Article 226

Delhi HC20 Apr 2026W.P.(C)/2053/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.(C) 2053/2026, Delhi High Court, decided 20.04.2026, Anil Kshetarpal & Amit Mahajan, JJ. Keywords: Assured Career Progression Scheme 1999; First Financial Upgradation; ACP; BSF Constable; voluntary retirement 2003; representation dated 18.11.2025; representations 24.02.2024 and 30.08.2024; rejection communication 27.01.2025; ACR gradings benchmark; continuing wrong; recurring cause of action; Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 648 distinguished; repeated representations no fresh cause of action; delay and laches; Article 226 discretionary jurisdiction; service matters; administrative finality; mandamus; pensionary benefits; petition dismissed, merits left open.

What did the court decide?

None. The petition was dismissed solely on the ground of delay and laches; the merits of the ACP claim were left open. ¶51

Amar Singh Vs Union of India & Anr. — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None. The petition was dismissed solely on the ground of delay and laches; the merits of the ACP claim were left open.

¶51

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner's claim for grant of First Financial Upgradation under the ACP Scheme involves a 'continuing wrong' giving rise to a recurring cause of action, so that relief cannot be denied solely on the ground of delay (principle invoked from Tarsem Singh). +1 more

¶28

Court's answer

The reliance placed on Tarsem Singh is misconceived: that Supreme Court decision dealt with disability pension, where denial results in a recurring and continuing injury, the employee suffering a fresh cause of action each time appropriate pension is not disbursed.

¶34

Ratio / Principle

A claim for financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme, founded on service conditions, eligibility criteria and assessment of the service record at the relevant time, once crystallised and either granted or denied, does not give rise to a recurring cause of action in the manner of pensionary entitlements simpliciter.

¶35

Key takeaways

Repeated representations do not furnish a fresh cause of action, do not extend the period of limitation, and do not revive a stale claim; permitting otherwise would let litigants circumvent delay and laches by successive representations.ratio¶42
The extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and cannot be invoked for adjudication of claims that are ex facie stale and barred by delay, particularly in service matters where settled rights of the parties and administrative finality are of paramount importance.ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delay and laches — writ under Article 226 — Petitioner, a BSF Constable enrolled 23.12.1980, promoted Lance Naik 1989, voluntarily retired 2003, sought mandamus to decide his representation dated 18.11.2025 and grant of First Financial Upgradation under the Assured Career Progression Scheme, 1999; earlier representations of 24.02.2024 and 30.08.2024 had been rejected vide communication dated 27.01.2025 as his ACR gradings fell below the prescribed benchmark. Held, dismissing the petition on delay and laches alone with merits left open: (i) reliance on Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648 is misconceived — the continuing-wrong principle applies to recurring pensionary denials such as disability pension, whereas an ACP claim, founded on service conditions and service record, once granted or denied does not give rise to a recurring cause of action; (ii) repeated representations neither furnish a fresh cause of action nor extend limitation nor revive a stale claim; (iii) Article 226 jurisdiction is discretionary and will not be exercised for claims ex facie stale and barred by delay, particularly in service matters. Judgment per Anil Kshetarpal, J. for the Bench of Kshetarpal and Mahajan, JJ., decided 20.04.2026.

¶1

$~4

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Date of Decision: 20.04.2026

¶4

- W.P.(C) 2053/2026 AMAR SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Puru Mudgil, Ms. Shweta Shandilya, Ms. Kaberi Sharma, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Syed Abdul Haseeb, CGSC with Ms. Nasreen Khatoon, GP for Union of India and Mr. Muhammad Aamir Khan, Mr. Syed Abdur Rahman, Advs.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

¶9

J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

¶10

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.:

¶11

Through the present Petition, the Petitioner seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to decide his representation dated 18.11.2025 and grant him the benefit of the First Financial Upgradation under the Assured Career Progression Scheme, 1999 [hereinafter referred to as the “ACP Scheme”].

¶12

FACTUAL MATRIX:

¶13

In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the present Petition, the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.

¶14

Signature Not Verified

¶15

¶16

Page 1 of 6

¶17

The Petitioner was enrolled in the Border Security Force („BSF‟) on 23.12.1980 as a Constable (General Duty). During the course of his service, he was promoted to the rank of Lance Naik in the year 1989. The Petitioner subsequently sought and was granted voluntary retirement in the year 2003.

¶18

It is an admitted position that after his retirement, the Petitioner did not raise any grievance regarding grant of financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme for a considerable period. It is only after a lapse of more than two decades that the Petitioner submitted a representation dated 24.02.2024 seeking grant of the First Financial Upgradation under the ACP Scheme. This was followed by another representation dated 30.08.2024.

¶19

The Respondents, vide communication dated 27.01.2025, informed the Petitioner that his case for grant of the First ACP had been examined. It was conveyed that his Annual Confidential Reports („ACRs‟) for the relevant period reflected gradings of “Good” for the year 1995-96 and “Satisfactory” for 1996-97, whereas for the years 1997-98 and 1998-99, the gradings were “below the prescribed benchmark”. Thus, his ACRs gradings did not meet the benchmark prescribed for grant of financial upgradation. Consequently, his case was not found suitable for grant of financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme.

¶20

Thereafter, the Petitioner submitted yet another representation dated 18.11.2025, which, according to him, remains pending, leading to the filing of the present Petition.

¶21

Signature Not Verified

¶22

¶23

Page 2 of 6

¶24

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES:

¶25

Learned counsel representing the Petitioner submits that the denial of the benefit under the ACP Scheme has a continuing adverse effect on the Petitioner‟s pensionary benefits and, therefore, constitutes a continuing wrong. In support of the aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Tarsem Singh¹ , to contend that in cases involving recurring or continuing injury, relief cannot be denied solely on the ground of delay.

¶26

Per contra , learned counsel representing the Respondents submits that the present Petition is liable to be dismissed on account of gross delay and laches, inasmuch as the Petitioner has approached this Court after more than two decades of his retirement. It is further submitted that the Petitioner‟s claim has already been considered and rejected by the competent authority vide communication dated 27.01.2025 and, therefore, no direction for reconsideration is warranted.

¶27

ANALYSIS & FINDINGS:

¶28

This Court has considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and has perused the material placed on record. At the outset, it is necessary to examine the applicability of the principle of “continuing wrong” as sought to be invoked by the Petitioner.

¶29

The reliance placed on Tarsem Singh (supra) is misconceived.

¶30

1 (2008) 8 SCC 648

¶31

Signature Not Verified

¶32

¶33

Page 3 of 6

¶34

In the said decision, the Supreme Court was dealing with a claim relating to disability pension, where denial of such benefit results in a recurring and continuing injury, as the employee suffers a fresh cause of action each time appropriate pension is not disbursed.

¶35

However, the present case stands on an entirely different footing. The Petitioner‟s claim pertains to grant of financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme, which is founded upon service conditions, eligibility criteria, and assessment of service record at the relevant point of time. Such a claim, once crystallised and either granted or denied, does not give rise to a recurring cause of action in the same manner as pensionary entitlements simpliciter.

¶36

In the present case, the Petitioner retired from service in the year 2003. Admittedly, no grievance with regard to denial of ACP benefits was raised either during his service tenure or within a reasonable period thereafter. The Petitioner has failed to disclose any steps taken by him for redressal of his alleged grievance for more than 21 years following his retirement.

¶37

It is only in the year 2024 that the Petitioner chose to submit representations seeking grant of ACP benefits. The Respondents, upon consideration, rejected his claim by a communication dated 27.01.2025, assigning reasons, inter alia , with reference to his ACR gradings. Instead of challenging the said communication within a reasonable time, the Petitioner submitted another representation dated 18.11.2025 and has sought to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court by merely projecting the matter as one of non-consideration of

¶38

Signature Not Verified

Page 4 of 6

representation.

It is well-settled that repeated representations do not furnish a fresh cause of action, nor do they extend the period of limitation or revive a stale claim. If such a course were to be permitted, it would enable litigants to circumvent the settled principles governing delay and laches by the simple device of submitting successive representations.

¶43

The extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary in nature and cannot be invoked for adjudication of claims that are ex facie stale and barred by delay, particularly in service matters, where settled rights of the parties and administrative finality are of paramount importance. The doctrine of delay and laches is founded on sound public policy. Entertaining claims after an inordinate lapse of time would not only disturb settled positions but would also lead to administrative complications and uncertainty.

¶44

In the facts of the present case, the delay is not merely marginal but is of a colossal magnitude. The Petitioner seeks to reopen issues relating to his service conditions more than two decades after his retirement, without furnishing any plausible explanation for such prolonged inaction.

¶45

In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches alone, without entering into the merits of the Petitioner‟s claim, which are left open.

¶46

Signature Not Verified

Page 5 of 6

CONCLUSION:

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds that the present Petition suffers from gross delay and laches and does not warrant exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶51

Accordingly, the present Petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

¶52

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

¶53

AMIT MAHAJAN, J.

¶54

APRIL 20, 2026 jai/ pal

¶55

Signature Not Verified

¶56

¶57

Page 6 of 6

Amar Singh v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amar Singh v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Kanika Exports Vs Union of India & Ors.

M/S Malik Seasoning and Spices Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax

Mr. Nisschal Jaain Vs Union of India & Ors.

Anil Bhalla Vs Directorate of Enforcement & Anr.

Dr. S. Anil Kumar Vs Union of India & Anr.

Ganesh Jee Pathak Vs Resident Commissioner Govt. of Jharkhand and Ors.

Sandeep Kumar (Proprietor M/S N. Brothers Overseas) Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import)

Vishwajeet Souryan Vs Union of India and Anr.

Austin Hyundai (Austin Distributors Pvt. Ltd) Vs Axalta Coating Systems India Pvt. Ltd.

M/S Singh Caterers and Vendors Vs Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Limited

Amol Singh Vs Union of India & Anr.

Ex Gc Ashutosh Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Ombir Singh Vs the Principal Secretary Horticultural Govt J and K and Ors.

Commissioner of Police and Ors. Vs Hari Kishan