This civil appeal was filed by the Civil Aviation Authority challenging a High Court of Sindh order that directed the regularization of respondent No. 1's service from the date he completed five years of employment. The respondent had been appointed on a contingency basis in 1995 and served for over five years until being 'de-hired' in 2001 due to medical reasons. The core legal issue concerned the maintainability of the respondent's writ petition, which was filed in 2011, approximately ten years after the cause of action arose. The Supreme Court observed that the respondent failed to provide any justification or explanation for the significant delay in approaching the court. Consequently, the Court held that the petition suffered from laches and was not sustainable. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's order, affirming the principle that unexplained and excessive delay in seeking judicial relief disentitles a petitioner to discretionary remedies.
1. ' MAQBOOL BAQAR, J.---Through the above Civil Appeal, the appellant authority has challenged the Order dated 6-11-2012 of a learned Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh, in terms whereof the petition filed by the respondent No.1 was allowed, with direction to the appellant to regularize the service of the petitioner/respondent No.1 from the date when he completed 5 years of his service.
2. The respondent No.1, who was on 28-6-1995 appointed on contingency continued to serve as such, for more than 5 years, however, on 31-7-2001 he was admitted in a hospital due to Urinary Retraction Numbness of lower limps, and was on account of his illness, "de-hired" with effect from 31-12-2001. Unfortunately it took the respondent No.1 A about 10 years in approaching the High Court, as the petition decided through the impugned order was so filed in the year 2011 only, and as rightly submitted by the Additional Attorney-General the same suffered from latches and ought to have been dismissed for having been filed after a lapse of about 10 years.
3. ' The respondent No.1, who appeared in person, despite opportunity failed to explain or justify the delay. Since the petition was filed after a lapse of almost 10 years and that too without any justification or explanation for such delay, the same ought to have been dismissed as such.
4. However through the impugned order the petition was instead allowed, which order, on account of the above noted delay in filing of the petition, is not sustainable. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order is accordingly set aside.