Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurdial Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 1 December, 2025
1
CWP-35574
35574 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-355744 of 2025
Date of decision
decision: 01.12.2025
Gurdial Singh and others
......Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present: - Mr. Vinay Puri, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Charanpreet Singh, AAG, Punjab.
NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)
1. Instant petition has been filed by the petitioners, who are retired Inspectors from the office of Director, State Transport, Punjab, under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India India, seeking a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to grant the petitioners the pay scale which is equal to the Inspectors of Food and Civil Suppl Supplies Department with effect from the date of their appointment/promotion as Inspectors and also to revise their pension accordingly, in view of the judgment passed by this Court in CWP-9175 CWP 9175 of 2000 - 'Daljit Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others others' (Annexure P-4), with all consequential benefits.
benefits
2. Brief facts,, as have been pleaded in the present petition, are that the petitioners were employees of Punjab Roadways 1 of 23 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2025 16:12:18 ::: 2 CWP-35574 35574 of 2025 (Department of Transport). Some of the the petitioners joined service directly as Inspectors and were promoted to the post of Chief Inspector/Station Supervisor Grade-I Grade I whereas others were promoted as Inspectors from the post of Adda Conductor/Sub Inspector on the basis of seniority-cum-merit.
seniority The he service particulars of the petitioners as given in Annexure P-1 P are as under: -
Sr. Name Date of Depot PPO No.
No. retirement
1. Gurdial Singh 30.04.2016 Punjab Roadways, PB/111604
Ropar 7336
2. Kashmir Singh 31.05.2016 Punjab Roadways, PB/111650
Ropar 537
3. Gurcharan 31.03.2012 Punjab Roadways, PB/111200
Singh Ropar 5062
4. Nikku Singh 31.10.2005 Punjab Roadways,
Ropar
5. Amarjit Singh 30.06.2020 Punjab Roadways, PB/111210
Nangal 10951
6. Kewal Singh 30.04.2007 Punjab Roadways, PB/205689
Nawanshahr
7. Achhru Ram 31.05.2011 Punjab Roadways, PB/111100
Ludhiana 0148
8. Gurmit Singh 31.12.2007 Punjab Roadways, PB/212637
Ropar
9. Amrik Singh 21.05.2015 Punjab Roadways, PB/111503
Ropar 7348
10. Kuldip Singh 31.05.2008 Punjab Roadways, PB/218069
Ropar
11. Gurdip Singh 21.01.2019 Punjab Roadways, PB/111908
Jalandhar
Jalandhar-1 3637
12. Manjit Singh 21.03.2015 Punjab Roadways, PB/111504
Ludhiana 1340
13. Narinder Singh 30.04.2010 Punjab Roadways, PB/240704
Ropar
14. Karam Singh 28.02.2007 Punjab Roadways, PB/204703
Ropar
15. Des Raj 31.12.2018 Punjab Roadways, PB/111808
Nangal 2613
16. Amarjit Singh 30.09.2017 Punjab Roadways, PB/111706
Chandigarh 8814
17. Amarjit Singh 31.01.2017 Punjab Roadways, PB/111705
Chandigarh 9179
18. Dev Raj 30.06.2020 Punjab Roadways, PB/112101
2 of 23
::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2025 16:12:19 :::
3
CWP-35574
35574 of 2025
Nangal 0399
19. Roshan Lal 31.05.2018 Punjab Roadways, PB/111807
Nangal 5702
20. Deep Chand 30.06.2015 Punjab Roadways, PB/111503
Ropar 8677
21. Mewa Singh 31.07.2018 Punjab Roadways, PB/111807
Hoshiarpur 6669
22. Rajinder Singh 30.11.2014 Punjab Roadways, PB/111400
Ropar 15593
23. Ujjar Singh 31.04.2009 Punjab Roadways, PB/226379
Ropar
Prior to First Pay Commission, the pay scale of Inspector Inspectors of Punjab Roadways was Rs.90-160 Rs.90 160 and whereas the pay pay-scale of Inspectors of Food and Civil Supplies Department was that of Rs.80 Rs.80-
150. Subsequently, Inspectors of Punjab Roadways were granted the pay scale of Rs.140-300 Rs.140 300 vide letter no. 38/11/809FR/I 38/11/809FR/I-0112 dated 04.12.1981,, whereas the Inspectors of Food and Civil Supplies were granted the pay scale of Rs.140-300 Rs.140 300 with the selection grade of Rs.160 Rs.160-
400. On recommendation of Second Punjab Pay Commission, the petitioners' category was granted the revised pay sc scale of Rs.510-940 with the selection grade of 20% of Rs.680- Rs.680-1120, whereas Inspectors of the Food and Civil Supplies Department were granted the pay scale of Rs.570-1080 1080 with selection grade of Rs.700 Rs.700-1200. Thus, the Inspectors of Punjab Roadways who were initially initially placed in the higher pay scale than that of Inspectors Food and Supply, were subsequently placed in the lower pay scale without assigning any reason and this created a pay anomaly. Further, on on recommendation of the Third Pay Commission, the Inspectors ctors of Punjab Roadways were granted the revised pay scale of Rs.1350-2400 Rs.1350 2400 which was further revised to Rs.1410 Rs.1410-2460 and Rs.1500-2640 2640 w.e.f. 24.05.1991, 24.05.1991 whereas the Inspectors of Food and 3 of 23 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2025 16:12:19 ::: 4 CWP-35574 35574 of 2025 Supply Department were placed in the scale of Rs.1500 Rs.1500-2640 w.e.f.
01.01.1986 1.01.1986 which was further revised to Rs.1640 Rs.1640-2925 w.e.f.
01.01.1986 which has further created pay anomaly. The Punjab Government has also revised the pay scale of Inspectors working in the Co-operative operative societies and Inspectors Audit from Rs.1500 Rs.1500-2640 to Rs.1640-2925 2925 w.e.f. 01.01.1986, 01.01.1986 vide notification dated 27.03.1991. The petitioners' category represented to the Director State Transport, Punjab, who recommended the case of the petitioners to the Secretary, Department of Transport, Punjab, to revise th the pay scales of the petitioners' category by bringing it at par with other Inspectors working in other Departments w.e.f. 01.01.1986 but the Punjab Government vide order dated 24.05.1991 (Annexure P-
P-2) revised the pay scale of the Inspectors working in Punjab Punjab Roadways to Rs.1500 Rs.1500-2640 w.e.f 24.05.1991 instead of 01.01.1986 without assigning any reasons and thus a pay anomaly has been further created. The Punjab Government, Department of Transport issued notification dated 07.01.1994 (Annexure P-3) P regarding grant of pay scale of Rs.1640 Rs.1640-2925 to Inspectors of Punjab Roadways who have completed 15 years of service as Inspectors w.e.f 07.01.1994 instead of w.e.f. 01.01.1986 without assigning any reasons. Notification dated 07.01.1994 was challenged by the Inspectors Inspectors of Punjab Roadways through Civil Writ Petition No. 9175 of 2000 titled as 'Daljit Daljit Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others', others , which was allowed vide order dated 26.05.2017 (Annexure P-4) P and the date of 07.01.1994 specified in the order with the condition of 15 years in service was set aside and the respondents 4 of 23 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2025 16:12:19 ::: 5 CWP-35574 35574 of 2025 were directed to amend the said date so as to make the revision of pay scale effective from 01.01.1986. Letters Patent Appeal No.659 of 2018, filed by State of Punjab has also been dismi dismissed being barred by limitation, vide order dated 27.02.2019 (Annexure P P-5). Against the above said orders, State of Punjab had preferred SLP No.14572 of 2019 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which has also been dismissed dismissed, vide order dated 17.01.2025 (Annexure (An P-6).
6). It is further averred that the petitioners who are presently working as Inspectors or have worked as Inspectors and are presently on higher posts in Punjab Roadways (Department of Transport, Transport Punjab) are also entitled to get pay scale equal to their counterparts working in the Department of Food and Civil Supply and other departments of Government of Punjab. At present Inspectors of Food and Civil Supply Department and other departments of Government of Punjab, are getting the pay scale of Rs.10300-34800 34800 + Rs.4200 grade pay w.e.f. 01.12.2011 01.12.2011, whereas the Inspectors of Punjab Roadways (Department of Transport Transport, Punjab) are getting the pay scale of Rs.10300-34800 Rs.10300 34800 + Rs.3800 grade pay. Vide representation dated 20.06.2025 .2025 (Annexure P P-8), petitioners' category represented the Director, Director State Transport, Punjab, to issue general notification to implement the judgment passed by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.9175 of 2000 titled as 'Daljit Daljit Singh and others v. State of Punjab' on non-petitioners ioners also and grant them pay scale which is equal to Inspectors of Food and Civil Supply Department. It is further averred that earlier also vide order dated 11.09.2025 (Annexure P P-9) passed in CWP No.27040 of 2025 titled as 'Mohinder Singh and others 5 of 23 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2025 16:12:19 ::: 6 CWP-35574 35574 of 2025 v.. State of Punjab and others', others , this Court had directed the respondents to decide the claim of petitioners taking note of judgment passed in Civil Writ Petition No.9175 of 2000 titled as 'Daljit Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others' others within four mo months from the receipt of certified copy of order by passing a speaking and well well-reasoned order.
Respondent No.2, No.2 vide speaking orders dated 21.05.2025 (Annexure P P-
10) has implemented the judgment dated 26.05.2017 (Annexure P P-4) passed by this Court in CWP No. 9175 of 2000 titled as 'Daljit Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others' others qua the petitioners of different writ petitions only.
In nutshell, the claim of the petitioners is for grant of pay scale of Rs.10300-34800 Rs.10300 34800 + Rs.4200 grade pay w.e.f. 01.12.2011, which is being given to the Inspectors working in the Food and Supplies Department, Punjab, and whereas the petitioners, who have retired as Inspectors from the Punjab Roadways, were getting the pay scale of Rs.10300-34800 34800 + Rs.3800 grade pay.
3. The case was heard before-lunch lunch session and since the Court was not inclined to interfere in the matter, as the claim of the petitioners was highly belated and bereft of material facts facts, learned counsel for the petitioners sought and was granted permiss permission to withdraw the present writ petition. However, at the time of rising of the Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the case be decided on merits. He argued that the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by a judgment of this Court in CWP CWP-9175 of 2000 - Daljit Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others decided on 26.05.2017 6 of 23 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2025 16:12:19 ::: 7 CWP-35574 35574 of 2025 (Annexure P-4), P , which has been upheld in LPA-659 of 2018 - State of Punjab and others v. Daljit Daljit Singh and others decided on 27.02.2019 (Annexure P-5) P and SLP preferred against the said judgments in SLP No.14572 of 2019, 2019 has also been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 17.01.2025 (Annexure P P-6). He further submitted that the said judgments have been implemented by the respondents department vide order dated 21.05.2025 (Annexure P respondents-department P-10).
He further submitted that similarly situated persons like the present petitioners, had also filed CWP-27040 27040 of 2025 - 'Mohinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others', others , which has been disposed of by a Co-ordinate ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.09.2025 (P (P-9), whereby respondent No.2 has been directed to examine the claim of the petitioners, as raised in the writ petition in the light of judgment passed in CWP-9175 9175 of 2000 and to take decision with within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, by passing a speaking and well-reasoned well reasoned order and in case it is found that the petitioners are entitled to any consequential equential relief relief, the same shall be released to them forthwith along with reasonable rate of interest.
4. Learned State counsel, who has appeared on receipt of advance copy of the paperbook, submitted that the claim raised by the petitioners tioners in the present writ petition is highly belated and is not maintainable as some of the petitioners have already retired from service prior to 01.12.2011, the date from which the petitioners are claiming pay scale of Rs.10300-34800+4200/ 34800+4200/- grade pay. He further submitted that all the petitioners have retired from service between 7 of 23 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2025 16:12:19 ::: 8 CWP-35574 35574 of 2025 2005 to 2020 and while they were in service they never raised any grievance claiming pay scale at par with Inspectors of the Food and Civil Supplies Department of Government oof Punjab. He further submitted that even the representation dated 20.06.2025 20.06.2025, attached with the writ petition as Annexure P-8, P has also not been made by the petitioner(s)) themselves and was made by so called President and Secretary of the Punjab Roadways Pensioner Association. He further submitted that the judgment dated 26.05.2017 passed in CWP-9175 of 2000 (Annexure P-4) P is not applicable to the facts of the present case as in the said case, the challenge was to the cut cut-off date of 07.01.1994 instead of 01.01.1986.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Admittedly, the petitioners have retired from service on attaining the age of their superannuation superannuation between the years 2005 to 2020. No details of the service particulars of the petitioners have been given in Annexure P-1, P 1, which has been reproduced in para 2 above above, as only the date(s) date of retirement of the petitioners has been mentioned. Neither the he dates date of joining the service in the Transport Department have been mentioned nor their dates date of appointment/promotion as Inspectors have been mentioned and the present petition is bereft of the necessary service particulars of the petitioners petitioners. It is also an admitted fact that while the petitioners were in service, they had not raised any grievance with regard to their claim of pay scale of Rs.10300 Rs.10300- 34800+4200 grade pay w.e.f. 01.12.2011. Therefore, at this belated 8 of 23 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2025 16:12:19 ::: 9 CWP-35574 35574 of 2025 stage, their claim with regard to higher pay scale cannot be entertained. It has also not been demonstrated as to how the petitioners are entitled for the abovesaid pay scale w.e.f. 01.12.2011 01.12.2011. Further in the judgment in Daljit Singh's case (supra), the petitioners therein, who were working ing as Inspectors, were granted the pay scale of Rs.1640-2925 w.e.f. 07.01.1994 and they claimed that the said pay scale be granted to them w.e.f. 01.01.1986 instead of 07.01.1994 and the said claim was accepted by this Court.
7. The Division Bench of thiss Court in "H.S. Gill vs Union of India and others", 2016(2) SCT 477,, has held that an employee cannot claim the revised pay scale after retirement once he has been receiving the pay scale granted by the employer for the last 09 years. The relevant portion from the said judgment, reads as under:
under:-
"14. The petitioner is also not entitled to any relief on account of principle of delay and laches. He has been receivingg the pay in the pay scale of ₹6500-10500 right from his transfer to CSIO, Chandigarh i.e. 2.7.2002. For the first time, he moved the representation on 29.8.2011, so, he kept mum for about 9 years. Thus, the claim of the petitioner is highly belated and stale."
8. In a recent judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in "Ram Kumar vs State of Haryana and others", 2022 (3) SCT 346,, while rejecting the claim of the petitioner for counting of his ad hoc service, for the purpose of seniority/pension and regularization in service on completion of 02 years as per policy, held that the petiti petition filed by him suffered from gross, inordinate and unexplained delay in approaching the High Court. In the said judgment, it has been held as 9 of 23 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2025 16:12:19 ::: 10 CWP-35574 35574 of 2025 under:-
"10. What we wish to emphasize, in particular, is that services of the appellant were regularized w.e.f. 01.04.1997. And, he was assigned a specific seniority position in the cadre. Whereafter, he continued to serve the department for nearly twenty five years, before attaining the age of superannuation in January, 2022. Needless to assert that during all these years, he availed all admissible benefits, promotions, and retired as Inspector. Thus, it rather appears that institution of the petition by the appellant was speculative and an attempt to resurrect a stale and dead claim. The Supreme Court, in New Delhi Municipal Council v. Pan Singh & Ors., 2007(9) SCC 278, observed:
"15. There is another aspect of the matter which cannot be lost sight of. Respondents her herein filed a Writ Petition after 17 years. They did not agitate their grievances for a long time. They, as noticed herein, did not claim parity with the 17 workmen at the earliest possible opportunity. They did not implead themselves as parties even in the reference made by the State before the Industrial Tribunal. It is not their case that after 1982, those employees who were employed or who were recruited after the cut-off off date have been granted the said scale of pay. After such a long time, therefore, the Writ Petitions could not have been entertained even if they are similarly situated. It is trite that the discretionary jurisdiction may not be exercised in favour of those who approach the Court after a long time. Delay and laches are relevant factors for exercise of equitable jurisdiction. See Govt. of W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy And Others [(2004) 1 SCC 347], Chairman, 10 of 23 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2025 16:12:19 ::: 11 CWP-35574 35574 of 2025 U.P. Jal Nigam & Anr. v. Jaswant Singh And Anr. [2006 (12) SCALE 347] and Karnataka Power Corpn. Ltd. through its Chairman & Managing Director and nd Another v. K. Thangappan and Another [(2006) 4 SCC 322] 322]"
11. Similarly, in Jagdish Lal & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., (1997) 6 SCC 538 538, it was held by the Supreme Court:
"That apart, as this Court has repeatedly held, the delay disentitles the par party to the discretionary relief under Article 226 or 32 of the Constitution. It is not necessary to reiterate all catena of precedents in this behalf. Suffice it to state that the appellant kept sleeping over their rights for long and elected to wake up whe when they had the impetus from Vir Pal Chauhan and Ajit Singh's ratios..................... Therefore, desperate attempts of the appellants to re-do do the seniority had by them in various cadres/grades though in the same services according to 1974 Rules or 1980 Rul Rule, are not amenable to judicial review at this belated stage...."
12. In the wake of the position as sketched out above, we are dissuaded to interfere with the impugned order and judgment rendered by the learned single Judge. The appeal being bereft of merit is, accordingly, dismissed."
9. The Co-ordinate ordinate Bench of this Court in "Prem Nath v. State of Punjab", 2018(2) SCT 687,, while rejecting the claim of additional increments on acquisition of higher qualifications has held as under:-
"3. It is the case set up on behalf of the petitioners that they had all been appointed before 19.02.1979 and 11 of 23 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2025 16:12:19 ::: 12 CWP-35574 35574 of 2025 had even improved/acquired higher qualifications before 19.02.1979 and as such there would be no difference between the employees working with the Punjab Government, holding corresponding post and the employees like the petitioners who have worked for Punjab Privately Managed Recognised Aided Schools. It is also the assertion made by counsel representing the petitioners that their claim would be cov covered in terms of decision dated 02.07.2013 rendered by this Court in a bunch of writ petitions including CWP No.8083 of 1989 titled as Radha Krishan Narang and others vs. State of Punjab and others.
4. Having heard counsel for the petitioners at length, this his Court is of the considered view that the claim of the petitioners would not require any consideration on merits and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the sole ground of delay and laches.
5. Placed on record and appended at Annexure P P-1 are the particulars of the petitioners. The tabulation at Annexure P-11 would show that all the petitioners stand retired on various dates between the years 1995 to 2012. Out of 32 petitioners in all, 22 petitioners superannuated more than 10 years back.
6. There ere is no justification coming forth as regards the inordinate delay in having approached the Writ Court. There is also no explanation put forth by the petitioners as to why the claim raised in the instant petition was not agitated by the petitioners while they were in service. The entire thrust of the submissions advanced by counsel is that similarly situated employees had approached this Court and have been granted releif.
7. The issue regarding delay in invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was considered by the Hon'ble 12 of 23 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2025 16:12:19 ::: 13 CWP-35574 35574 of 2025 Supreme Court in Chairman, U.P. Jal Nigam and another v. Jaswant Singh and another (2006)11 SCC 464
464. In such case, certain employees raised the issue that they were not liable to be retired tired at the age of 58 years but should be permitted to continue in service till they attain the age of 60 years. Such employees were still in service when the writ petitions were filed. The writ petitions were ultimately allowed. Placing reliance upon suc such judgment, some of the employees, who had already superannuated, filed writ petitions seeking the same benefit. Even such petitions were allowed by the High Court in terms of following the earlier judgment. The judgment of the High Court was challenged before fore the Apex Court and wherein while referring to earlier judgments in Rup Diamonds v. Union of India, (1989)2 SCC 356; "Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana, (1997)6 SCC 538 and Government of West Bengal v. Tarun K. Roy, 2004(1) SCT 78 : (2004)1 SCC 347, it was as opined that persons who approached the Court at a belated stage placing reliance upon the order passed in some other case earlier, can be denied the discretionary relief on the ground of delay and laches. The relevant observations made by the Supreme Co Court are contained in Paras 5, 6 and 16 of the judgment and are extracted here under:-
"5. So far as the principal issue is concerned, that has been settled by this court. Therefore, there is no quarrel over the legal proposition. But the only question is grant rant of relief to such other persons who were not vigilant and did not wake up to challenge their reitrement and accepted the same but filed writ petitions after the judgment of this court in Harwindra Kumar v. Chief Engineer, Karmik, 2006(1) SCT 541 : (2005) 13 SCC 300
300. Whether they are entitled to same relief or not? Therefore, a 13 of 23 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2025 16:12:19 ::: 14 CWP-35574 35574 of 2025 serious question that arises for consideration is whether the employees who did not wake up to challenge their retirement and accepted the same, collected their post-retiremen retirement benefits, can such persons be given the relief in the light of the subsequent decision delivered by this court?
6. The question of delay and laches has been examined by this court in a series of decisions and laches and delay has been considered to be an important factor in exercise of the discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. When a person who is not vigilant of his rights and acquiesces with the situation, can his writ petition be heard after a couple of years on the ground that same me relief should be granted to him as was granted to person similarly situated who was vigilant about his rights and challenged his retirement which was said to be made on attaining the age of 58 years. A chart has been supplied to us in which it has been pointed out that about 9 writ petitions were filed by the employees of the Nigam before their reitrement wherein their retirement was somewhere between 30.6.2005 and 31.7.2005. Two writ petitions were filed wherein no relief of interim order was passed. They ey were granted interim order. Thereafter a spate of writ petitions followed in which employees who retired in the years 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005, woke up to file writ petitions in 2005 and 2006 much after their retirement. Whether such persons should ld be granted the same relief or not? xx xx xx
16. Therefore, in case at this belated stage if similar relief is to be given to the persons who have not approached the court that will unnecessarily 14 of 23 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2025 16:12:19 ::: 15 CWP-35574 35574 of 2025 overburden the Nigam and the Nigam will completely collapse pse with the liability of payment to these persons in terms of two years' salary and increased benefit of pension and other consequential benefits. Therefore, we are not inclined to grant any relief to the persons who have approached the court after their retirement. Only those persons who have filed the writ petitions when they were in service or who have obtained interim order for their retirement, those persons should be allowed to stand to benefit and not others."
[Emphasis supplied]
8. The issue of delay elay was also dealt with by this Court in Tarsem Pal v. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others, 2013 (3)SLR 314
314. In the case of Tarsem Pal (supra), the petitioner was serving as a Clerk with the respondent-Corporation Corporation and had retired on 31.03.2005.
05. Claim in the writ petition was to grant to him the benefit of proficiency set up in the pay scale on completion of 23 years of service from the due date as per policy of the Corporation. During the service career, he had not agitated the claim for incr increments. For the first time, such claim had been made on 28.02.2005 i.e. just one month prior to superannuation. While non non-suiting the petitioner on account of delay and laches it was held as follows:-
"11. In the aforesaid judgments, it has been clearly laid aid down that discretionary relief in a writ jurisdiction is available to a party who is alive of his rights and enforces the same in court within reasonable time. The judgment in another case does not give a cause of action to file a writ petition at a belated lated stage seeking the same relief. Such petitions can be dismissed on account of delay and laches. As 15 of 23 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2025 16:12:19 ::: 16 CWP-35574 35574 of 2025 has already been noticed above in the present case as well, the petitioner joined service in the year 1965 and retired in the year 2005, but raised the issue regarding benefit of proficiency step up in the pay scale on completion of 23 years of service from the due date more than five years after his retirement referring to a judgment of this court and filed the petition claiming the same relief.
12. The petitioner retired from service on 31.3.2005 and the claim pertaining to the benefit of proficiency step up, which may be admissible to the petitioner during his service career, was sought to be raised more than five years after his retirement, the claim made at such a late stage deserves to be dismissed on account of delay and laches only. The petitioner could raise a grievance about the pay scales admissible to him or the last pay drawn by him within a reasonable time after his retirement. He cannot be permitted ermitted to raise the same at any time on the plea that the same is recurring cause of action.
13. Considering the enunciation of law, as referred to above, in my opinion, the petitioner herein is not entitled to the relief prayed for and the petition deserves erves to be dismissed merely on account of delay and laches."
9. At this stage, counsel appearing for the petitioners would make an attempt to overcome the obstacle of delay by placing reliance upon a Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Saroj Kumar vs. St State of Punjab, 1998(3) SCT 664.. Counsel would argue that as per dictum laid down in Saroj Kumar's case(supra), matters of pay fixation involve a recurring cause of action and as such, writ petitions for such claim cannot be 16 of 23 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2025 16:12:19 ::: 17 CWP-35574 35574 of 2025 dismissed on the ground of delay and laches and the Court at the most, may restrict the arrears upto 38 months from the date of filing of the petition and disallow the arrears for the period for which even a suit had become time barred.
10. The reliance placed by counsel upon the judgment nt in Saroj Kumar's case, is wholly misplaced. The observations and aspect of delay in Saroj Kumar's case, were in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in M.R. Gupta vs. Union of India and others, 1995(4) RSJ
502.. In M.R. Gupta's case(supra), it had been categorically held that so long as an employee "is in service" a fresh cause of action arises every month when he is getting his monthly salary on the basis of a wrong calculation made contrary to rules. It was further held that the claim to be awarded arded the correct salary on the basis of a proper pay fixation "is a right which subsists during the entire tenure of service".
11. In the present case, however the petitioners choose not to agitate their claim while in service. It is much subsequent to their superannuation that they have woken up and seek to gain impetus from certain decisions that may have been rendered in the case of similarly situated employees.
12. Considering the dictum of law as laid down in Chariman, U.P. Jal Nigam's case (supra), the petitioners herein are not entitled to any relief as prayed for and the petition deserves to be dismissed on the sole ground of delay and laches.
13. Ordered accordingly."
ordingly."
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal and another v. Sri Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari and others, 2013(12) SCC 179,, while considering the issue regarding delay and laches and 17 of 23 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2025 16:12:19 ::: 18 CWP-35574 35574 of 2025 referring to the earlier judgments on the issue, opined that repeated representations made will not keep the issue alive. A stale or a dead issue/dispute cannot be revived even if such a representation has either been decided by the authority or got decided by getting a direction from the court as the issue regarding regarding delay and laches is to be decided with reference to original cause of action and not with reference to any such order passed. Delay and laches on the part of a government servant may disentitle him from receiving the benefit that had been granted to others. Article 14 of the Constitution of India would not be attracted as it is well-established established principle that the law favours those who are alert and vigilant. Even equality has to be claimed at the right juncture and not on expiry of reasonable time.
time. Even if there is no period prescribed for filing the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, yet it should be filed within a reasonable time. An order permitting a junior should normally be challenged within a period of six months or or at the most in a year of such promotion. Though it is not a strict rule, the courts can always interfere even subsequent thereto, but relief to a person, who allows things to happen and then approach the court and puts forward a stale claim and try to un unsettle settled matters, can certainly be refused on account account of delay and laches.
Anyone one who sleeps over his rights is bound to suffer the consequences. An employee who remains dormant like a "Rip Van Winkle' and awakens from his slumber at his own convenience cannot claim relief, as such conduct justifies denial on the ground of delay and laches. Relevant paragraphs from the aforesaid judgment are extracted below:
18 of 23 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2025 16:12:19 ::: 19 CWP-35574 35574 of 2025 "13. We have no trace of doubt that the respondents could have challenged the ad hoc promotion conferred on the junior employee at the relevant time. They chose not to do so for six years and the junior employee held the promotional post for six years till regular promotion took place. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondents nts is that they had given representations at the relevant time but the same fell in deaf ears. It is interesting to note that when the regular selection took place, they accepted the position solely because the seniority was maintained and, thereafter, th they knocked at the doors of the tribunal only in 2003. It is clear as noon day that the cause of action had arisen for assailing the order when the junior employee was promoted on ad hoc basis on 15.11.1983. In C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining and another, 2008(4) SCT 604 : (2008) 10 SCC 115, a two-Judge Judge Bench was dealing with the concept of representations and the directions issued by the court or tribunal to consider the representations and the challenge to the said rejection thereafter. In that context, the court has expressed thus:-
"Every representation to the Government for relief, may not be replied on merits. Representations relating to matters which have become stale or barred by limitation, can be rejected on that ground alone, without ex examining the merits of the claim. In regard to representations unrelated to the Department, the reply may be only to inform that the matter did not concern the Department or to inform the appropriate Department. Representations with incomplete particulars m may be replied by seeking relevant particulars. The replies to such representations, cannot furnish a fresh cause of action or revive a stale or dead claim."
11. In Union of India and others v. M. K. Sarkar, (2010) 2 19 of 23 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2025 16:12:19 ::: 20 CWP-35574 35574 of 2025 SCC 59,, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after referring to C. Jacob (supra) has ruled that when a belated representation in regard to a "stale" or "dead" issue/dispute is considered and decided, in compliance with a direction by the court/tribunal to do so, the date of such decision cannot be considered nsidered as furnishing a fresh cause of action for reviving the "dead" issue or time-barred time barred dispute. The issue of limitation or delay and laches should be considered with reference to the original cause of action and not with reference to the date on which an order is passed in compliance with a Court's direction. Neither a court's direction to consider a representation issued without examining the merits, nor a decision given in compliance with such direction, will extend the limitation, or erase the delay and laches.
12. From the aforesaid authorities, it is crystal clear that even if the court or tribunal directs for consideration of representations relating to a stale claim or dead grievance it does not give rise to a fresh cause of action. The dead cause cause of action cannot rise like a phoenix. Similarly, a mere submission of representation to the competent authority does not arrest time. In Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. through its Chairman & Managing Director and another v. K. Thangappan and another, (2006) 4 SCC 322 322, the Court took note of the factual position and held that when nearly for two decades the respondent/workmen therein had remained silent mere making of representations could not justify such a belated approach.
13. In State of Orissa v. Sri Pyarimohan Samantaray and others, (1977) 3 SCC 396, 396, it has been opined that making of repeated 20 of 23 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2025 16:12:19 ::: 21 CWP-35574 35574 of 2025 representations is not a satisfactory explanation of delay. To the same effect is the judgment in State of Orissa v. Shri Arun Kumar Patnaik and another, another (1976) 3 SCC 579.
14. In Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Ghanshyam Dass and others,, (2011) 4 SCC 374, 374 a three-Judge Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the principle stated in Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana, 1998(1) SCT 26 : (1977) 6 SCC 538 and proceeded to observe that as the respondents therein preferred to sleep over their rights and approached the tribunal in 1997, they would not get the benefit of the order dated 7.7.1992.
15. In State of Tamil Nadu v. Seshachalam, (2007) 10 SCC 137,, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, testing the equality clause on the bedrock of delay and laches pertaining to grant of service benefit, has ruled thus:-
"11......
... filing of representations alone would not save the period of limitation. Delay or laches is a relevant factor for a court of law to determine the question as to whether the claim made by an applicant deserves consideration. Delay and/or laches on the part of a government servant may deprive him of the benefit which had been given to others. Article 14 of the Constitution of India would not, in a situation of that nature, be attracted as it is well known that law leans in favour of those who are alert and vigilant........."
16. In New Delhi Municipal Council v. Pan Singh and others,, (2007) 9 SCC 278, 278 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined that though there is no period of limitation provided for filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, yet ordinarily a writ 21 of 23 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2025 16:12:19 ::: 22 CWP-35574 35574 of 2025 petition should be filed within a reasonable time. In the said case the respondents had filed the writ petition after seventeen years and the court, as stated earlier, took note of the delay and laches as relevant factors and set aside the order passed by the High Court which had exercised the discretionary jurisdiction.
17. In "Union of India & Anr vs Manpreet Singh Poonam Etc.", 2022(4) SCT 550, 550, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has held as under:-
"16. It is trite law that once an officer retires voluntarily, there is cessation of jural rela relationship resorting to a "golden handshake" between the employer and employee. Such a former employee cannot seek to agitate his past, as well as future rights, if any, sans the prescription of rules. This would include the enhanced pay scale. The Respondentt in Civil Appeal No.517 of 2017 was rightly not considered in the DPC in 2012 since he was no longer in service at the relevant point of time. The High Court has committed an error in relying upon a circular, which has got no application at all, particula particularly in the light of our finding that we are dealing with a case of promotion simpliciter as against upgradation of any nature."
18. To the same effect is the judgment of this Court in "Suraj Mal vs The State of Haryana and others", 2015(1) SCT 31, wherein the petitioner was claiming revision of pay scales w.e.f. 04.01.2022, benefit of ACP scale, after completion of 10 years of regular service, revised pension and other retiral benefits, after nearly 05 years, after his retirement and the said claims were rejected on the ground of delay and latches.
22 of 23 ::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2025 16:12:19 ::: 23 CWP-35574 35574 of 2025
19. In view of the above authoritative enunciation of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, the aforesaid issues as raised in the present writ petition filed by the petitioners after about 05 years of the retirement of even the last petitioner, cannot be allowed to be agitated, gitated, at this stage and consequently, the present petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches.
20. In view of the above, present petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/-
Rs.25,000/ to be deposited with the High Court Lawyers' Welfare are Fund, Fund, within a period of six weeks from today today.
(NAMIT KUMAR)
01.12.2025 JUDGE
R.S.
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
23 of 23
::: Downloaded on - 13-12-2025 16:12:19 :::