Punjab-Haryana High Court
Brij Mohan Datta & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 13 February, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:020536
CWP No.9423 of 2014 (O&M)
1
2024:PHHC:020536
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.9423 of 2014 (O&M)
Date of decision: 13.02.2024
Brij Mohan Datta and others
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present: Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Jai Narain, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Sandeep Khunger, Advocate and Mr. Saksham Khunger, Advocate for respondent No.3.
NAMIT KUMAR J.
1. The petitioners have approached this Court by way of filing the instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 18.02.2014 (Annexure P-3), passed by respondent No.3, whereby their claim for grant of additional increments on completion of 24/32 years of service as per the Assured Career Progression Scheme, 1998, has been rejected, with a further prayer to release the same with all consequential benefits.
2. Brief facts of the case, as have been pleaded in the petition, are that the petitioners joined the office of Municipal Corporation, Amritsar between the year 1969 to 1971 as Clerks and thereafter, they 1 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2024 20:34:04 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:020536 CWP No.9423 of 2014 (O&M) 2 2024:PHHC:020536 were promoted on 19.10.2004 and 20.10.2004 as Inspectors and they have retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation between the years 2005 to 2009. It is the case of the petitioners that they were entitled for the grant of additional increments on completion of 24/32 years of service in terms of Assured Career Progression Scheme (Annexure P-1) and since the said benefit was not granted to them while they were in service, petitioners No.1 to 6 served a legal notice dated 01.08.2013 upon the respondents for granting the said benefit and since no action was taken on the same, they approached this Court by filing a petition i.e. CWP No.24982 of 2013, which was disposed of vide order dated 14.11.2013, with a direction to the respondents to decide the claim of the petitioners by passing a speaking order, within a period of 02 months and in pursuance thereto, the claim of the petitioners have been rejected vide order dated 18.02.2014 (Annexure P-3), which is being impugned in the present writ petition.
3. The reasoning for rejecting the claim of the petitioners as have been given in the impugned order, reads as under:-
"After carefully examining the whole matter and applying my mind, I have noticed that petitioners have already availed of more than two increments during their entire service career, as per Punjab Govt. Notification No. 7/37/98-5PPI/12851 dt. 23.9.98 duly adopted by the Municipal Corporation, Amritsar which stipulated that the service rendered in the same post before 1-1-96 or the date opted for by an employee shall count for the purpose of the decisions governed by the Punjab Civil Services (Revised Pay Rules, 1998) and an employee shall be entitled to a maximum of two placements in higher scale and a 2 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2024 20:34:05 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:020536 CWP No.9423 of 2014 (O&M) 3 2024:PHHC:020536 maximum of two proficiency steps up in his entire service career under the scheme; and Whereas all the above mentioned petitions were placed as Junior Assistant w.e.f. 1-1-1987 and they have already availed of more than two proficiency steps up in their entire service career under the assured career progression scheme after the implementation of the 4th Punjab Pay Commission and as such they are not entitled for the release of additional increments on completion of 24/32 years of service as per the assured career progression scheme 1998.
Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, I reject the claim of the petitioners for getting the additional increments on completion of 24/32 years of service as per the assured career progression scheme 1998 duly, notified by the Punjab Govt. Notification referred to above."
4. On issuance of notice of motion, respondent No.3 has filed the written statement wherein the claim of the petitioners has been opposed, firstly on the ground of delay and laches and secondly, on merits, it has been stated that the petitioners have already been granted the due benefits and they are not entitled for the additional increments on completion of 24/32 years of service. With regard to delay and laches, it has been stated that the petitioners have retired from service between the year 2005 to 2009 and for the first time, they served a legal notice dated 01.08.2013, after inordinate delay especially when the relationship of employee and employer have already come to an end, on account of superannuation of the petitioners. On merits, it has been submitted that petitioners have already been granted the due benefits while they were in service and they are not entitled for any other 3 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2024 20:34:05 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:020536 CWP No.9423 of 2014 (O&M) 4 2024:PHHC:020536 additional increments. The relevant paras from the written statement, reads as under:-
"2. That in reply to para 2 of the writ petition, it is submitted that petitioner no.1-Brij Mohan Dutta was appointed as a Clerk in the Municipal Corporation on 25.06.1970. The petitioner no.1 was getting pay of Rs.585/- in the pay scale of Rs.400-600. As on 01.01.1986, this pay of Rs.585/- was converted into Rs.1350/- in revised pay scale of Rs.950-1800 w.e.f. 01.01.1986. He was given the benefit of 1st proficiency step-up on 18.02.1986 by raising his pay from Rs.1350/- to Rs.1380/- on the completion of 8 years of service as per Government letter dated 01.12.1988. He was placed in the Junior Assistant in the pay scale of Rs.1500- 2640 w.e.f. 01.01.1987. He was also granted 2nd proficiency step-up by raising his pay from Rs.1530/- to Rs.1560/- w.e.f. 25.06.1988 on the completion of 18 years of service. Therefore it is clear that from the placement of initial pay of Rs.1500/- in the pay scale of Rs.1500-2640 as Junior Assistant, petitioner no.1 got enhancement in the basic pay from Rs.1380/- to Rs.1500/-. The petitioner no.1 got benefit of 4 increments. As his case for the grant of proficiency step- up(s) falls prior to 01.09.1989, he was granted one additional increment 25.06.1988 on account of proficiency step in spite of enhancement in the pay as referred above as per Government letter dated 10.03.1997. This service was rendered prior to placement as Junior Assistant, therefore, will not be not reckoned for the purpose of proficiency step- ups. As per rules, the petitioner no.1 is entitled to 2nd proficiency step-up under the Assured Career Progression Scheme w.e.f. 01.01.2011 (1987+24). However as per record, petitioner no.1 was granted the benefit of 2 nd proficiency step- up w.e.f. 01.01.1996 by raising his pay
4 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2024 20:34:05 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:020536 CWP No.9423 of 2014 (O&M) 5 2024:PHHC:020536 from Rs.6000/- to Rs.6200/-. As per record, no recovery has been made from petitioner no.1 for excess benefit granted to him. As per clarification given by the Government, vide letter dated 10.03.1997, petitioner no.1 is entitled to the hierarchy of pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.2019 and no additional increment is admissible on the completion of 32 years of service as the employee was promoted as Senior Assistant, as on 20.10.2004 and retired from Municipal Service on 28.02.2009, as such no benefit has accrued to him.
3. That the contents of para 3 of the writ petition are admitted that petitioner no.2-Shri Raghvir Kumar was appointed as a Clerk in the Municipal Corporation on 10.06.1970. It may be brought to the notice of this Hon'ble Court that petitioner no.2 was getting pay of Rs. 585/- in the pay scale of Rs.400-600/- as on 01.01.1986. This pay of Rs.585/- was converted into Rs.1380/- in the revised pay scale of Rs.950-1800/-, Rs.1200-2100/- w.e.f. 01.01.1986. Petitioner No.2 was given the benefit of 1st proficiency step-up on 01.01.1986 by raising his pay from Rs.1350/- to Rs.1380/- on the completion of 8 years of service as per Government letter dated 01.12.1988. He was placed in the Junior Assistant in the pay scale of Rs.1500-2640 w.e.f. 01.01.1987. He was also granted 2nd proficiency step-up by raising his pay from Rs.1530/- to Rs.1560/- w.e.f. 01.01.1987 on the completion of 18 years of service. Therefore, it clearly shows that at the placement of initial pay of Rs.1500/- in the pay scale of Rs.1500-2640/- as Junior Assistant and petitioner no.2 got enhancement in the basic pay from Rs.1380/- to Rs.1500/-. The petitioner no.2 got benefits of 4 increments. As the case of petitioner no.2 for grant of proficiency step-up(s) falls prior to 01.09.1989, he was granted one additional increment on 5 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2024 20:34:05 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:020536 CWP No.9423 of 2014 (O&M) 6 2024:PHHC:020536 account of proficiency step inspite of enhancement in the pay as referred above as per Government letter dated 10.03.1997. This service rendered prior to placement as Junior Assistant will not be reckoned for the purpose of proficiency step-ups. As per Rules, he is entitled to 2 nd proficiency step-up under the Assured Career Progression Scheme w.e.f. 01.01.2011 (1987+24). However as per record, he was granted the benefit of 2 nd proficiency step- up w.e.f. 01.01.1996 by raising his pay from Rs.6000/- to Rs.6200/-. As per record, no recovery has been made for excess benefit. As per clarification given by the Government, vide letter dated 10.03.1997, the petitioner no.2 is entitled to the hierarchy of pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.2018 and no additional increment is admissible on the completion of 32 years of service, as the employee was promoted as Senior Assistant as on 19.10.2004 and retired from Municipal Service on 31.08.2008, as such no benefit has accrued to him.
4. That the contents of para 4 of the writ petition are admitted that petitioner no.3-Shashi Pal was appointed as a Clerk in the Municipal Corporation on 26.02.1971. It may be brought to the notice of this Hon'ble Court that petitioner no.3 was getting pay of Rs.585/- in the pay scale of Rs.400- 600/- as on 01.01.1986. This pay of Rs.585/- was converted into Rs.1350/- in the revised pay scale of Rs.950-1800/-, w.e.f. 01.01.1986. Petitioner No.3 was given the benefit of 1st proficiency step-up on 01.01.1986 by raising his pay from Rs.1350/- to Rs.1380/- on the completion of 8 years of service as per Government letter dated 01.12.1988. He was placed in the Junior Assistant in the pay scale of Rs.1500-2640 w.e.f. 01.01.1987. He was also granted 2nd proficiency step-up by raising his pay from Rs.1530/- to Rs.1560/- w.e.f. 26.12.1989 on the completion 6 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2024 20:34:05 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:020536 CWP No.9423 of 2014 (O&M) 7 2024:PHHC:020536 of 18 years of service. Therefore, it clearly shows that at the placement of initial pay of Rs.1500/- in the pay scale of Rs.1500-2640/- as Junior Assistant, petitioner no.3 got enhancement in the basic pay from Rs.1380/- to Rs.1500/-. The petitioner no.3 got benefits of 4 increments. As the case of petitioner no.3 for grant of proficiency step-up(s) falls prior to 01.09.1989, he was granted one additional increment on 25.06.1988 on account of proficiency step inspite of enhancement in the pay as referred above as per Government letter dated 10.03.1997. This service rendered prior to placement as Junior Assistant will not be reckoned for the purpose of proficiency step-ups. As per Rules, he is entitled to 2nd proficiency step-up under the Assured Career Progression Scheme w.e.f. 01.01.2011 (1987+24). However as per record, he was granted the benefit of 2 nd proficiency step-up w.e.f. 01.01.1996 by raising his pay from Rs.6000/- to Rs.6200/-. As per record, no recovery has been made for excess benefit. As per clarification given by the Government, vide letter dated 10.03.1997, the petitioner no.3 is entitled to the hierarchy of pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.2018 and no additional increment is admissible on the completion of 32 years of service, as the employee was promoted as Senior Assistant as on 19.10.2004 and retired from Municipal Service on 31.12.2008, as such no benefit has accrued to him.
5. That the contents of para 5 of the writ petition are admitted that petitioner no.4-Vijay Kumar Nayyar was appointed as a Clerk in the Municipal Corporation 16.06.1970. It may be brought to the notice of this Hon'ble Court that petitioner no.4 was getting pay of Rs.585/- in the pay scale of Rs.400-600 as on 01.01.1986. This pay of Rs.585/- was converted into Rs.1350/- in the revised pay scale of Rs.950-1800/- w.e.f. 01.01.1986. Petitioner No.4 7 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2024 20:34:05 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:020536 CWP No.9423 of 2014 (O&M) 8 2024:PHHC:020536 was given the benefit of 1st proficiency step-up on 01.01.1986 by raising his pay from Rs.1350/- to Rs.1380/- on the completion of 8 years of service as per Government letter dated 01.12.1988. He was placed in the Junior Assistant in the pay scale of Rs.1500-2640 w.e.f. 01.01.1987. He was also granted 2nd proficiency step-up by raising his pay from Rs.1530/- to Rs.1560/- w.e.f. 04.11.1988 on the completion of 18 years of service. Therefore, it clearly shows that at the placement of initial pay of Rs.1500/- in the pay scale of Rs.1500-2640/- as Junior Assistant and petitioner no.4 got enhancement in the basic pay from Rs.1380/- to Rs.1500/-. The petitioner no.4 got benefits of 4 increments. As the case of petitioner no.4 for grant of proficiency step-up(s) falls prior to 01.09.1989, he was granted one additional increment on 25.06.1988 on account of proficiency step-up inspite of enhancement in the pay as referred above as per Government letter dated 10.03.1997. This service rendered prior to placement as Junior Assistant will not be reckoned for the purpose of proficiency step-ups. As per Rules, he is entitled to 2nd proficiency step-up under the Assured Career Progression Scheme w.e.f. 01.01.2011 (1987+24). However as per record, he was granted the benefit of 3rd proficiency step-up w.e.f. 01.01.1996 by raising his pay from Rs.6000/- to Rs.6200/-. As per record, no recovery has been made for excess benefit. As per clarification given by the Government, vide letter dated 10.03.1997, the petitioner no.4 is entitled to the hierarchy of pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.2019 and no additional increment is admissible on the completion of 32 years of service, as the employee was promoted as Senior Assistant as on 20.10.2004 and retired from Municipal Service on 31.10.2008, as such no benefit has accrued to him.
8 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2024 20:34:05 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:020536 CWP No.9423 of 2014 (O&M) 9 2024:PHHC:020536
6. That the contents of para 6 of the writ petition are admitted that petitioner no.5-Amarjit Singh was appointed as a Clerk in the Municipal Corporation on 22.06.1970. It may be brought to the notice of this Hon'ble Court that petitioner no.5 was getting pay of Rs.585/- in the pay scale of Rs.400-600/- as on 01.01.1986. This pay of Rs.585/- was converted into Rs.1350/- in the revised pay scale of Rs.950- 1800/-, Rs.1200-2100/- w.e.f. 01.01.1986. Petitioner No.5 was given the benefit of 1st proficiency step-up on 18.02.1986 by raising his pay from Rs.1350/- to Rs.1380/- on the completion of 8 years of service as per Government letter dated 01.12.1988. He was placed in the Junior Assistant in the pay scale of Rs.1500-2640/- w.e.f. 01.01.1987. He was also granted 2nd proficiency step-up by raising his pay from Rs.1530/- to Rs.1560/- w.e.f. 25.06.1988 on the completion of 16 years of service. Therefore, it clearly shows that at the placement of initial pay of Rs.1500/- in the pay scale of Rs.1500-2640/- as Junior Assistant and petitioner no.5 got enhancement in the basic pay from Rs.1380/- to Rs.1500/-. The petitioner no.5 got benefits of 4 increments. As the case of petitioner no.5 for grant of proficiency step-up(s) falls prior to 01.09.1989, he was granted one additional increment on 25.06.1988 on account of proficiency step-up inspite of enhancement in the pay as referred above as per Government letter dated 10.03.1997. This service rendered prior to placement as Junior Assistant will not be reckoned for the purpose of proficiency step-ups. As per Rules, he is entitled to 2nd proficiency step-up under the Assured Career Progression Scheme w.e.f. 01.01.2011 (1987+24). As per clarification given by the Government, vide letter dated 10.03.1997, the petitioner no.5 is entitled to the hierarchy of pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.2019 and no additional increment 9 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2024 20:34:05 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:020536 CWP No.9423 of 2014 (O&M) 10 2024:PHHC:020536 is admissible on the completion of 32 years of service, as the employee was promoted as Senior Assistant as on 20.10.2004 and retired from Municipal Service on 28.02.2009, as such no benefit has accrued to him.
7. That the contents of para 7 of the writ petition are admitted that petitioner no.6-Sant Kumar was appointed as a Clerk in the Municipal Corporation on 06.12.1969. It may be brought to the notice of this Hon'ble Court that petitioner no.6 was getting pay of Rs.640/- in the pay scale of Rs.510- 800/- as on 01.01.1986. This pay of Rs.640/- was converted into Rs.1410/- in the revised pay scale of Rs.1200-2100/- w.e.f. 01.01.1986. Thereafter petitioner no.6 was placed in Rs.1500/- as Junior Assistant in the pay scale of Rs.1500- 2640/-. Petitioner No.6 was granted 1st proficiency step-up on 01.01.1996 by raising his pay from Rs.1500/- to Rs.1530/- on the completion of 8 years of service as per Government letter dated 01.12.1988. He was also granted 2nd proficiency step-up by raising his pay from Rs.1600/- to Rs.1640/- w.e.f. 01.01.1988 on the completion of 18 years of service. Therefore, it clearly shows that at the placement of initial pay of Rs.1500/- in the pay scale of Rs.1500-2640/- as Junior Assistant and petitioner no.6 got enhancement in the basic pay from Rs.1410/- to Rs.1500/-. The petitioner no.6 got benefits of 3 increments. As the case of petitioner no.6 for grant of proficiency step-up(s) falls prior to 01.09.1989, he was granted one additional increment on 01.01.1988 on account of proficiency step-up inspite of enhancement in the pay as referred above as per Government letter dated 10.03.1997. This service rendered prior to placement as Junior Assistant will not be reckoned for the purpose of proficiency step-ups. As per Rules, he is entitled to 2nd proficiency step-up under the Assured Career Progression Scheme w.e.f. 01.01.2011 (1987+24). However 10 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2024 20:34:05 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:020536 CWP No.9423 of 2014 (O&M) 11 2024:PHHC:020536 as per record, he was granted the benefit of 2 nd proficiency step-up w.e.f. 01.01.1996 by raising his pay from Rs.6200/- to Rs.6400/-. As per record, no recovery has been made for excess benefit. As per clarification given by the Government, vide letter dated 10.03.1997, the petitioner no.6 is entitled to the hierarchy of pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.2019 and no additional increment is admissible on the completion of 32 years of service, as the employee was promoted as Senior Assistant as on 19.10.2004 and retired from Municipal Service on 30.09.2007, as such no benefit has accrued to him.
8. That the contents of para 8 of the writ petition are admitted that petitioner no.7-Parshotam Lal was appointed as a Clerk in the Municipal Corporation on 09.03.1970. It may be brought to the notice of this Hon'ble Court that petitioner no.7 was getting pay Rs.585/- in the pay scale of Rs.400-600/- as on 01.01.1986. This pay of Rs.585/- was converted into Rs.1350/- in the revised pay scale of Rs.950- 1800/- w.e.f. 01.01.1986. Petitioner No.7 was given the benefit of 1st proficiency step-up on 18.02.1986 by raising his pay from Rs.1350/- to Rs.1380/- on the completion of 8 years of service as per Government letter dated 01.12.1988. He was placed in the Junior Assistant in the pay scale of Rs.1500- 2640/- w.e.f. 01.01.1987. He was also granted 2nd proficiency step-up by raising his pay from Rs.1530/- to Rs.1560/- w.e.f. 25.06.1988 on the completion of 16 years of service. Therefore, it clearly shows that at the placement of initial pay of Rs. 1500/- in the pay scale of Rs.1500-2640/- as Junior Assistant and petitioner no.7 got enhancement in the basic pay from Rs.1380/- to Rs.1500/-. The petitioner no.7 got benefits of 4 increments. As the case of petitioner no.7 for grant of proficiency step- up(s) falls prior to 01.09.1989, he was granted one 11 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2024 20:34:05 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:020536 CWP No.9423 of 2014 (O&M) 12 2024:PHHC:020536 additional increment on 25.06.1988 on account of proficiency step-up inspite of enhancement in the pay as referred above as per Government letter dated 10.03.1997. This service rendered prior to placement as Junior Assistant will not be reckoned for the purpose of proficiency step-ups. As per Rules, he is entitled to 2 nd proficiency step-up under the Assured Career Progression Scheme w.e.f. 01.01.2011 (1987+24). However as per record, he was granted the benefit of 2 nd proficiency step- up w.e.f. 01.01.1996 by raising his pay from Rs.6000/- to Rs.6200/-. As per record, no recovery has been made for excess benefit. As per clarification given by the Government, vide letter dated 10.03.1997, the petitioner no.7 is entitled to the hierarchy of pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.2018 and no additional increment is admissible on the completion of 32 years of service, as the employee was promoted as Senior Assistant as on 20.10.2004 and retired from Municipal Service on 30.06.2005, as such no benefit has accrued to him."
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are entitled for additional increment on completion of 24 and 32 years of service in terms of Assured Career Progression Scheme, 1998, with all consequential benefits and their claim has wrongly been rejected by respondent No.3, vide impugned order dated 18.02.2014 (Annexure P-3). He further submits that the impugned order passed by respondent No.3 is illegal, cryptic and non-speaking and against the provisions of ACP Scheme.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that since there is inordinate delay in claiming the said benefits, therefore, the petition is liable to be 12 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2024 20:34:05 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:020536 CWP No.9423 of 2014 (O&M) 13 2024:PHHC:020536 dismissed on account of delay and laches. He has also referred to the averments made in the written statement to justify that the claim of all the petitioners have been duly considered and since the due benefits have already been released to them in the shape of proficiency step-ups and regular promotion, therefore, they are not entitled for the grant of benefit of additional increment on completion of 24/32 years of service.
7. Learned counsel for respondent No.3, has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.1238 of 2015, titled as "Satinder Pal Singh Walia vs State of Punjab and others", decided on 14.03.2016; the judgments passed by this Court in "Harnam Singh vs State of Punjab and others", 2014(3) SCT 353 and "Magghar Singh vs State of Punjab and another", passed in CWP No.411 of 2024 decided on 11.01.2024.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
9. Firstly, I shall deal with the objection raised by learned counsel for respondent No.3 with regard to delay and laches in filing the present writ petition by the petitioners. Admittedly, the petitioners have retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation between the year 2005 to 2009 and for the first time, they served a legal notice dated 01.08.2013 upon the respondents claiming the benefit of additional increments on completion of 24/32 years of service. The Division Bench of this Court in Satinder Pal Singh Walia's case (supra), while considering the question of delay and laches has held as under:-
"The appellant, who retired from service in the year 2009, filed writ petition in the year 2014 claiming benefit 13 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2024 20:34:05 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:020536 CWP No.9423 of 2014 (O&M) 14 2024:PHHC:020536 of one increment on completion of 32 years of service under Assured Career Progression Scheme. The benefit, according to the appellant, was due to him in the year 2004. The writ petition having been filed about 5 years after retirement of the appellant seeking to claim a benefit which, according to the appellant, was due in the year 2004 was rightly dismissed by the learned Single Judge applying the principles of delay and laches. For the purpose, reference can be made to the judgment of this court in Harnam Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2014(3) SCT 353.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay is also dismissed."
10. This Court while considering the same issue in Magghar Singh's case (supra), has held as under:-
"6. The petitioner is claiming the benefit of the notification dated 15.12.2011 (Annexure P-3) after a period of more than 12 years. He retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 28.02.2013 and the present writ petition has been filed after a period of about 10 years from the date of retirement. Once the relationship of master and servant has come to an end on retirement of an employee, the petitioner cannot agitate the stale issues after 10 years. If the claim of the petitioner for revised pay scale was genuine, he could have agitated the same when he was in service. The Division Bench of this Court in "H.S. Gill vs Union of India and others", 2016(2) SCT 477, has held that an employee cannot claim the revised 14 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2024 20:34:05 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:020536 CWP No.9423 of 2014 (O&M) 15 2024:PHHC:020536 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:-
"14. The petitioner is also not entitled to any relief on account of principle of delay and laches. He has been receiving 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."
7. In a recent judgment 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 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 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 15 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2024 20:34:05 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:020536 CWP No.9423 of 2014 (O&M) 16 2024:PHHC:020536 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 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 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 16 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2024 20:34:05 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:020536 CWP No.9423 of 2014 (O&M) 17 2024:PHHC:020536 W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy And Others [(2004) 1 SCC 347], Chairman, 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 Another v. K. Thangappan and Another [(2006) 4 SCC 322]"
11. Similarly, in Jagdish Lal & Ors.
v. State of Haryana & Ors., (1997) 6 SCC 538, it was held by the Supreme Court:
"That apart, as this Court has repeatedly held, the delay disentitles the 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 when they had the impetus from Vir Pal Chauhan and Ajit Singh's ratios..................... Therefore, desperate attempts of the appellants to re-do the seniority had by them in various cadres/grades though in the same services according to 1974 Rules or 1980 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 17 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2024 20:34:05 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:020536 CWP No.9423 of 2014 (O&M) 18 2024:PHHC:020536 merit is, accordingly, dismissed."
8. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in "Prem Nath and others vs State of Punjab and others", 2018(2) SCT 687, while rejecting the claim of additional increments of 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 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 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 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 18 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2024 20:34:05 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:020536 CWP No.9423 of 2014 (O&M) 19 2024:PHHC:020536 Annexure P-1 are the particulars of the petitioners. The tabulation at Annexure P-1 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 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 Supreme Court in Chairman, U.P. Jal Nigam and another v. Jaswant Singh and another (2006)11 SCC
464. In such case, certain employees raised the issue that they were not liable to be retired 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 such judgment, some of the employees, who had already superannuated, filed writ petitions seeking the same benefit.
19 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2024 20:34:05 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:020536 CWP No.9423 of 2014 (O&M) 20 2024:PHHC:020536 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 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 SCC 347, it was 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 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 of relief to such other persons who were not vigilant and did not wake up to challenge their retirement and accepted the same but filed writ petitions after the judgment of this court in Harwindra Kumar v. Chief Engineer, Karmik, (2005) 13 SCC 300. Whether they are entitled to same relief or not? Therefore, a 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-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 20 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2024 20:34:05 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:020536 CWP No.9423 of 2014 (O&M) 21 2024:PHHC:020536 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 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 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 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 overburden the Nigam and the Nigam will completely collapse 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] 21 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2024 20:34:05 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:020536 CWP No.9423 of 2014 (O&M) 22 2024:PHHC:020536
8. The issue of delay was also dealt with by this Court in Tarsem Pal vs. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others, 2013 (3)SLR 314. In the case of Tarsem Pal(supra), the petitioner was serving as a Clerk with the respondent-Corporation and had retired on 31.03.2005. 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 increments. For the first time, such claim had been made on 28.02.2005 i.e. just one month prior to superannuation. While 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 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 stage seeking the same relief. Such petitions can be dismissed on account of delay and laches. As 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 22 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2024 20:34:05 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:020536 CWP No.9423 of 2014 (O&M) 23 2024:PHHC:020536 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 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 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. 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 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 in Saroj Kumar's case, is wholly misplaced. The observations and 23 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2024 20:34:05 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:020536 CWP No.9423 of 2014 (O&M) 24 2024:PHHC:020536 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 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 releif as prayed for and the petition deserves to be dismissed on the sole ground of delay and laches.
13. Ordered accordingly."
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal and another v. Sri Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari and others, 2013(6) SLR 629, while considering the issue regarding delay and laches and referring to earlier judgments on the issue, opined that repeated 24 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2024 20:34:05 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:020536 CWP No.9423 of 2014 (O&M) 25 2024:PHHC:020536 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 the Constitution of India, in a situation of that nature, will not be attracted as it is well known that law leans in favour of those who are alert and vigilant. Even equality has to be claimed at the right juncture and not on expiry of reasonable 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 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 unsettle settled matters, can certainly be refused on account of delay and laches.
Any one who sleeps over his rights is bound to suffer. An employee who sleeps like Rip Van Winkle and got up from 25 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2024 20:34:05 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:020536 CWP No.9423 of 2014 (O&M) 26 2024:PHHC:020536 slumber at his own leisure, deserves to be denied the relief on account of delay and laches. Relevant paragraphs from the aforesaid judgment are extracted below:
"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 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, 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) 10 SCC 115, a two-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
26 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2024 20:34:05 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:020536 CWP No.9423 of 2014 (O&M) 27 2024:PHHC:020536 which have become stale or barred by limitation, can be rejected on that ground alone, without 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 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."
10. In Union of India and others v. M. K. Sarkar, (2010) 2 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 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.
27 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2024 20:34:05 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:020536 CWP No.9423 of 2014 (O&M) 28 2024:PHHC:020536
11. From the aforesaid authorities, it is clear as crystal 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 of action cannot rise like a phoenix. Similarly, a mere submission of representation to the competent authority does not arrest time. In Karnataka Power Corpn. Ltd. through its Chairman & Managing Director v. K. Thangappan and another, (2006) 4 SCC 322, the Court took note of the factual position and laid down that when nearly for two decades the respondentworkmen therein had remained silent mere making of representations could not justify a belated approach.
12. In State of Orissa v. Pyarimohan Samantaray, (1977) 3 SCC 396, it has been opined that making of repeated representations is not a satisfactory explanation of delay. To the same effect is the judgment in State of Orissa v. Arun Kumar Patnaik, (1976) 3 SCC
579.
13. In Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v.
Ghanshyam Dass (2) and others, (2011) 4 SCC 374, a three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the principle stated in Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana, (1977) 6 SCC 538 and proceeded to observe that 28 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2024 20:34:05 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:020536 CWP No.9423 of 2014 (O&M) 29 2024:PHHC:020536 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.
14. In State of T. N. 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:-
"... 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."
15. In New Delhi Municipal Council v. Pan Singh and others, (2007) 9 SCC 278, the 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 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 29 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2024 20:34:05 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:020536 CWP No.9423 of 2014 (O&M) 30 2024:PHHC:020536 Court which had exercised the discretionary jurisdiction.
16. In "Union of India & Anr vs Manpreet Singh Poonam Etc.", 2022(4) SCT 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 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 Respondent 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, particularly in the light of our finding that we are dealing with a case of promotion simpliciter as against upgradation of any nature."
17. 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 the 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."
30 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2024 20:34:05 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:020536 CWP No.9423 of 2014 (O&M) 31 2024:PHHC:020536
11. A perusal of the stand taken by respondent No.3 in the written statement would show that the petitioners have already been granted the benefit of proficiency step-ups and actual promotion on the higher posts and as such, they are not entitled for the grant of additional increments on completion of 24/32 years of service, who have already been retired way back in years 2005 to 2009.
12. In view of the above authoritative enunciation of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, the relief claimed in the present petition filed by the petitioners, at this belated stage, cannot be granted and consequently, the present petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches and merits also.
13. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the present writ petition is dismissed.
(NAMIT KUMAR)
JUDGE
13.02.2024
yakub
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:020536 31 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2024 20:34:05 :::