“18. Both these judgments, along with some other judgments, were taken note of in U.P. Jal Nigam v. Jaswant Singh [U.P. Jal Nigam v. Jaswant Singh, (2006) 11 SCC 464 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 500] . That was a case where the issue pertained to entitlement of the employees of U.P. Jal Nigam to continue in service up to the age of 60 years. In Harwindra Kumar v. Chief Engineer, Karmik [(2005) 13 SCC 300 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1063] this Court had earlier held that these employees were in fact entitled to continue in service up to the age of 60 years. After the aforesaid decision, a spate of writ petitions came to be filed in the High Court by those who had retired long back. The question that arose for consideration was as to whether the employees who did not wake up to challenge their retirement orders, and accepted the same, and had collected their post-retirement benefits as well, could be given relief in the light of the decision delivered in Harwindra Kumar [(2005) 13 SCC 300 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1063] . The Court refused to extend the benefit applying the principle of delay and laches. It was held that an important factor in exercise of discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is laches and delay. When a person who is not vigilant of his rights and acquiesces into the situation, his writ petition cannot be heard after a couple of years on the ground that the same relief should be granted to him as was granted to the persons similarly situated who were vigilant about their rights and challenged their retirement. In para 7, the Court quoted from Rup Diamonds [Rup Diamonds v. Union of India, (1989) 2 SCC 356 : AIR 1989 SC 674] . In para 8, S.M. Kotrayya [State of Karnataka v. S.M. Kotrayya, (1996) 6 SCC 267 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1488] was taken note of.
