KULWANT SINGH vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS — CWP/13499/2026
Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: --DISMISSED on 11th May 2026.
CNR: PHHC010729242026
e-Filing Number
28-04-2026
Filing Number
CWP/26158/2026
Filing Date
29-Apr-2026
Registration No
CWP/13499/2026
Registration Date
30-Apr-2026
Judge
Mr. Justice Namit Kumar
Coram
Mr. Justice Namit Kumar
Bench Type
Single
Category
68.1 - GOVT SERVICE (PB)-SB ( 771 )
Judicial Branch
WRITS -I BRANCH
Decision Date
11-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
--DISMISSED
Last updated 01-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.KULWANT SINGH
Adv. HARNEK SINGH
-
2.State of Punjab and ors
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS
-
2.State of Punjab and ors
-
3.Transport Punjab
-
4.The General Manager, Punjab Roadways Depot, Hoshiarpur
-
5.The General Manager, Punjab Roadways Depot Ludhiana
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
11-May-2026
Mr. Justice Namit KumarView PDF
Case Summary: CWP/13499/2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Kulwant Singh's writ petition challenging the rejection of his departmental appeal as time-barred. Singh, a Punjab Roadways conductor appointed in 1977, filed an appeal on 04.09.2024 against five punishment orders (stoppage of increments) issued between 1977-1983, but approached authorities after an inordinate 47-41 year delay. The court held that such gross, unexplained delay defeats equitable relief and disentitles petitioners from discretionary relief under Article 226, applying the settled principle that "equity aids the vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights." This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
29-Apr-2026
Case filed
Registration No. CWP/13499/2026
Case Summary: CWP/13499/2026 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Kulwant Singh's writ petition challenging the rejection of his departmental appeal as time-barred. Singh, a Punjab Roadways conductor appointed in 1977, filed an appeal on 04.09.2024 against five punishment orders (stoppage of increments) issued between 1977-1983, but approached authorities after an inordinate 47-41 year delay. The court held that such gross, unexplained delay defeats equitable relief and disentitles petitioners from discretionary relief under Article 226, applying the settled principle that "equity aids the vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights." This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts