Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ved Parkash Bajaj vs Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam ... on 29 November, 2025
CWP-35469-2025 -1-
115 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-35469-2025
Date of decision: 29.11.2025
Ved Parkash Bajaj ....Petitioner
Versus
Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Manik Makkar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sandeep Kashyap, Advocate for
Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Advocate
for respondents No.1 to 5.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the following impugned orders:
a. Orders dated 24.04.2025 (Annexure P-11) and 01.07.2025 (Annexure P-
12), whereby the official respondents allowed the benefit of stepping-up of the petitioner's pay notionally w.e.f. 19.10.2007 as Junior Engineer (JE), but illegally restricted the payment of arrears to a period of three years by reckoning the date of his initial request as 28.06.2019, instead of the actual initial requests dated 24.06.2011 and again in 2014.
b. Order dated 15.10.2025 (Annexure P-13), whereby the remaining claims of the petitioner raised in the previous CWP No. 9594 of 2023 were rejected.
1 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 03-12-2025 23:15:56 ::: CWP-35469-2025 -2- c. Order dated 23.11.2016 (Annexure P-6), whereby the pension/family pension of the petitioner was reduced from an estimated ₹9,836/- to ₹9,515/-.
d. Order dated 23.11.2016 (Annexure P-7) and order dated 07.04.2017 (Annexure P-8), whereby amounts of ₹1,22,281/- and ₹46,382/-, respectively, were withheld from the petitioner's retirement benefits, including Gratuity.
2. Further, the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent-Corporation to release the following benefits:
a. The arrears of pay after stepping up the petitioner's pay at par with his junior counterparts of the Reserved Category, by considering his initial date of request as 24.06.2011 instead of 28.06.2019.
b. The difference in pension/family pension due to the arbitrary reduction from ₹9,836/- to ₹9,515/-, along with interest.
c. The amounts of ₹1,22,281/- (withheld from Gratuity) and ₹46,382/-
(arbitrarily withheld), along with interest.
d. The benefits of the Group Insurance Scheme (GIS) and all other pending pensionary benefits along with interest.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner commenced his service with the Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (UHBVNL) as a Regular T. Mate (R.T.M.) on 01.12.1971. The petitioner ultimately retired from service as a Junior Engineer on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.2010.
4. However, subsequent to his retirement, the respondent- Corporation failed to release the full pensionary benefits due to the petitioner, 2 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 03-12-2025 23:15:56 ::: CWP-35469-2025 -3- prompting him to move this Court CWP No. 13980 of 2011, which was disposed of on 03.08.2011, directing the respondents to decide his legal notice dated 24.06.2011 expeditiously. On 21.09.2011, the respondent-Corporation released only 75% provisional pension, amounting to ₹7,377/- + DR from 01.05.2014 onwards, without citing any reason for withholding the full amount.
5. Thereafter, the petitioner filed CWP No. 7594 of 2014 seeking directions for the fixation of his pay by granting the benefit of stepping-up of pay at par with his junior from the Reserved Category, along with all consequential benefits. This Court disposed of the aforesaid petition on 07.05.2015 (Annexure P-1A), directing the respondents to consider his case.
6. The petitioner subsequently served a legal notice dated 21.07.2014 to the Respondent-Corporation for the release of entire retiral benefits along with 18% interest, also requesting the benefit of stepping-up of pay. Thereafter, the petitioner filed CWP No. 20805 of 2014 before this Court for the release of entire pensionary benefits and pay stepping-up, which was disposed of on 07.10.2014 (Annexure P-2), directing the respondents to consider his grievance raised in the legal notice dated 21.07.2014. When the respondents failed to comply with the order dated 07.10.2014, the petitioner filed COCP No. 2663 of 2015, which was disposed of on 23.01.2017 (Annexure P-3), as the respondent- Corporation passed a Speaking Order dated 26.02.2016 (Annexure P-4) during its pendency.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted vide order dated 26.02.2016 (Annexure P-4), the respondent-Corporation declined the petitioner's claim for stepping-up of pay at par with his junior Reserved Category counterparts, which resulted in the wrongful deduction and recovery 3 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 03-12-2025 23:15:56 ::: CWP-35469-2025 -4- of amounts from his pensionary benefits. Subsequently, the petitioner's pension/family pension was arbitrarily reduced from ₹9,836/- to ₹9,515/- vide order dated 23.11.2016 (Annexure P-6). Additionally, amounts of ₹1,22,281/- and ₹46,382/- were wrongly and arbitrarily withheld from his retirement benefits, including Gratuity, through order dated 23.11.2016 (Annexure P-7) and order dated 07.04.2017 (Annexure P-8), respectively.
8. Thereafter, the petitioner filed CWP No. 7021 of 2017, which was withdrawn on 09.03.2023 (Annexure P-9). Learned counsel submitted that the withdrawal was necessitated by an unintentional mistake in challenging a different order instead of the speaking order dated 26.02.2016. This Court, while permitting the withdrawal, granted the petitioner the liberty to assail the order dated 26.02.2016. Consequently, the petitioner moved this Court vide CWP No. 9594 of 2023. This petition was disposed of on 02.07.2025 (Annexure P-10), as the respondents produced the copy of orders dated 24.04.2025 (Annexure P-11) and 01.07.2025 (Annexure P-12), claiming that the grievance of the petitioner had been resolved.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though the orders dated 24.04.2025 (Annexure P-11) and 01.07.2025 (Annexure P-12) allowed the petitioner's request for the benefit of stepping-up his pay notionally w.e.f. 19.10.2007 (the date he caught his junior reserved category counterpart, Sh. Jaswant Rai, JE/Retd.), the payment of arrears was restricted to a period of three years. This restriction was based on wrongly stating the date of his submission of request as 28.06.2019, instead of his initial request dates in 2011 and 2014. Furthermore, vide order dated 15.10.2025 (Annexure P-13), the remaining claims of the petitioner raised in CWP 9594 of 2023 have been arbitrarily rejected.
4 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 03-12-2025 23:15:56 ::: CWP-35469-2025 -5-
10. Per Contra, the learned counsel for the respondents argued that the petitioner has approached this Court for the fifth time and after a considerable delay following the date of his retirement. It is submitted that a claim for correct pay fixation cannot be considered a continuing wrong once an employee has left service. Therefore, a petition seeking such fixation is subject to dismissal on the grounds of delay and laches if it is filed with a significant delay following the cessation of employment. Furthermore, it is argued that repeated representations or court directions to consider a belated claim cannot keep a stale or dead issue alive.
OBSERVATION & ANALYSIS
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the petitioner retired from service as a Junior Engineer on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.2010. Admittedly, vide orders dated 24.04.2025 (Annexure P-11) and 01.07.2025 (Annexure P-12), the respondent-Corporation has allowed the petitioner's request for the benefit of stepping-up his pay notionally w.e.f. 19.10.2007, i.e., the date he caught his junior reserved category counterpart, Sh. Jaswant Rai, JE/Retd. However, the payment of arrears was restricted to a period of three years.
12. With regards to issues regarding fixation of pay, the position of law has been settled by a two-Judge Bench Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.R. Gupta v. Union of India, (1995) 5 SCC 628 and has been reaffirmed by a full bench decision of this Court in Saroj Kumari v. State of Punjab, 1998(3) SCT
664. Accordingly, so long as an employee is in service, a petition claiming re- fixation of pay is not barred by limitation or the doctrine of laches, as the denial 5 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 03-12-2025 23:15:56 ::: CWP-35469-2025 -6- of benefit occurs every month when the salary is paid, thereby giving rise to a fresh cause of action, based on continuing wrong. Such a case is not a case of one time action like the case of termination or dismissal from service. However, payment of arrears can be restricted to a reasonable period. Three years and two months has been considered to be a reasonable period as that is the period for which a person can ask for the payment of arrears before a Civil Court. In M.R. Gupta (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court speaking through Justice. J.S verma made the following observation:
"5. Having heard both sides, we are satisfied that the Tribunal has missed the real point and overlooked the crux of the matter. The appellant's grievance that his pay fixation was not in accordance with the rules, was the assertion of a continuing wrong against him which gave rise to a recurring cause of action each time he was paid a salary which was not computed in accordance with the rules. So long as the appellant is in service, a fresh cause of action arises every month when he is paid his monthly salary on the basis of a wrong computation made contrary to rules. It is no doubt true that if the appellant's claim is found correct on merits, he would be entitled to be paid according to the properly fixed pay scale in the future and the question of limitation would arise for recovery of the arrears for the past period. In other words, the appellant's claim, if any, for recovery of arrears calculated on the basis of difference in the pay which has become time barred would not be recoverable, but he would he entitled to proper fixation of his pay in accordance with rules and to cessation of a continuing wrong if on merits his claim is justified. Similarly, any other consequential relief claimed by him, such as, promotion etc. would also be subject to the defence of laches etc to disentitle him to those reliefs. The pay fixation can be made only on the basis of the situation existing on 1.8.1978 without taking into account any other consequential relief which may be barred by his laches and the bar of limitation. It is to this limited extent of proper pay fixation the application cannot be treated as time barred since it is based on a recurring cause of action.
6. The Tribunal misdirected itself when it treated the appellant's claim as 'one time action' meaning thereby that it was not a continuing wrong based on a recurring cause of action. The claim to be paid the correct salary computed on the basis of proper pay
6 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 03-12-2025 23:15:56 ::: CWP-35469-2025 -7- fixation, is a right which subsists during the entire tenure of service and can be exercised at the time of each payment of the salary when the employee is entitled to salary computed correctly in accordance with the rules. This right of a Government servant to be paid the correct salary throughout his tenure according to computation made in accordance with rules, is akin to the right of redemption which is an incident of a subsisting mortgage and subsists so long as the mortgage itself subsists, unless the equity of redemption is extinguished. It is settled that the right of redemption is of this kind. (See Thota China Subba Rao and others v. Mattapali Raju and others, AIR 1950 Federal Court 1)." (emphasis supplied)
13. However, once an employee ceases to be in service, the wrong fixation of pay can no longer be treated as a continuing wrong. Consequently, a petition seeking such fixation, if instituted after cessation of service and with substantial delay, is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. Reliance can be placed on the judgement of the co-ordinate bench of this Court in Prem Nath v. State of Punjab, 2018(2) SCT 687, wherein the petitioners approached this Court seeking correct fixation of pay much subsequent to their superannuation. While dismissing the petition on the ground of delay and laches, the Court held as follows:
"10. The reliance placed by counsel upon the judgment 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 v. Union of India and others, 1996(1) S.C.T 8 : 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 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 7 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 03-12-2025 23:15:56 ::: CWP-35469-2025 -8- impetus from certain decisions that may have been rendered in the case of similarly situated employees."
(emphasis supplied)
14. In the present case, the petitioner retired on 30.04.2010, and the instant petition has been instituted long after his superannuation. Since an erroneous pay fixation cannot be treated as a continuing wrong once the petitioner has retired, a claim for re-fixation of pay and consequential arrears, when raised with substantial delay after cessation of service, is liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches. Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.R. Gupta (supra) has categorically held that arrears may be restricted to a reasonable period, and that three years and two months constitutes such a reasonable period, being the duration for which a person may claim arrears before a Civil court. Therefore, the respondent-Corporation cannot be faulted for limiting the arrears payable to the petitioner to a period of three years.
15. Furthermore, in State of Uttaranchal v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari, (2013) 12 SCC 179, while considering the issue regarding delay and laches and referring to earlier judgments on the issue, a two-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court opined that repeated representations made will not keep the issues alive. A stale or a dead issue/dispute cannot be got 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 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 deprive him of the benefit which had been given to others. Article 14 of 8 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 03-12-2025 23:15:56 ::: CWP-35469-2025 -9- the Constitution of India, in a situation of that nature, will not be attracted as it is well settled that law leans in favour of those who are alert and vigilant.
16. In Union of India and others v. M. K. Sarkar, (2010) 2 SCC 59, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held 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 as furnishing a fresh cause of action for reviving the 'dead' issue or 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.
17. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner has been pursuing a succession of legal notices and petitions, beginning with CWP No. 13980 of 2011 and culminating in the present petition. However, in light of the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered view that repeated representations or directions to consider belated claims do not revive stale or dead issues. The question of delay and laches must be examined with reference to the original cause of action. Neither a series of representations nor subsequent court directions can breathe life into a time-barred claim or cure the substantial delay in asserting it.
CONCLUSION
18. In view of the above discussion, this Court does not find it 9 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 03-12-2025 23:15:56 ::: CWP-35469-2025 -10- appropriate to invoke its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed.
19. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
29.11.2025
Neha
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
10 of 10
::: Downloaded on - 03-12-2025 23:15:56 :::