Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tilak Raj And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Another on 12 January, 2026
1
CWP-38957
38957 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-38957
38957 of 2025
Reserved on
on:24.12.2025
Pronounced on: 12.01.2026
Uploaded on: 12.01.2026
Sh. Tilak Raj and others
......Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Argued by:: - Mr. Baldev Singh Sodhi,, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Satnampreet Singh, DAG,
AG, Punjab.
NAMIT KUMAR, J.
1. Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to give minimum regular pay scale, dearness allowance and grade pay to the petitioners at par with similarly imilarly situated co-employees, co according to the principles/law laid down in CWP-19238 CWP of 2013 - Amrish Sharma and others v. State of Punjab and nd others decided on 26.02.2024, which has been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA-2032 LPA 2032 of 2024 - State of Punjab and others v. Sarwan Ram and others decided on 16.05.2025.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners tioners have worked as Baildars on daily wage basis with the 1 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 13-01-2026 06:10:59 ::: 2 CWP-38957 38957 of 2025 respondent--department department for more than 20 years and all the petitioners have been relieved from service at the age of 58 years in the years 2016, 2017 and 2019. Learned counsel contended that petitioners have worked for more than 20 years but they have not been given the benefits of service rendered by them accord according to the principles/law laid down by this Court in Amrish Sharma's case (supra), which has been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in Sarwan Ram's case (supra). He further submits that petitioners have sent a legal notice notice-
cum-representation/demand representation/demand notice dated 13.11.2025 (Annexure P P-3) for regularization of their services and for grant of all consequential benefits at par with similarly situated co-employees, co employees, but no action has been taken thereon till date. He further submits that action of the respondents in not granting service benefits to the petitioners is illegal and against the principles of natural justice, therefore, present writ petition is liable to be allowed.
3. Learned State counsel, who has appeared on receipt of advance copy of the paperbook, submitted that the claim raised by the petitioners in the present writ petition is highly belated and is not maintainable He further submitted that benefit of Amrish Sharma's maintainable.
case cannot be given to the petitioners as in that case petitioners petitioners, who were in service, sought regularization and minimum of the pay scale and the present petitioners are seeking grant of minimum regular pay scales at par with their co-employees, co employees, after superannuation.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 13-01-2026 06:11:00 ::: 3 CWP-38957 38957 of 2025
5. As per their own case, petitioners worked as da daily wage workers with the respondent-department respondent ent continuously for more than 220 years and were relieved from service in the years 2016, 2017 and 2019. Now, after 5-9 5 9 years, they have approached this Court for grant of minimum regular pay scale, which is not tenable in the eyes of law after a huge delay as the claim of grant of minimum wages cannot be raised at this point of time when the petitioners are no longer in service service.
6. A Division Bench of this Court in H.S. Gill vs Union of India and others, 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 etitioner 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 representati 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 Ram Kumar vs State of Haryana and others others, 2022 (3) SCT 346, a Division Bench of this Court 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 approach approaching the High Court.
In the said judgment, it has been held as under:
under:-
"10. What we wish to emphasize, in particular, is 3 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 13-01-2026 06:11:00 ::: 4 CWP-38957 38957 of 2025 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, reafter, 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 Inspecto 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 he 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, U.P. Jal Nigam & Anr. v. Jaswant Singh And Anr. [2006 (12)
12) SCALE 347] and Karnataka Power 4 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 13-01-2026 06:11:00 ::: 5 CWP-38957 38957 of 2025 Corpn. Ltd. through its Chairman & Managing Director and 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 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 sta 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 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 merit is, accordingly, dismissed."
8. The Co-ordinate ordinate Bench of this Court in Prem Nath v. State of Punjab, 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 had even improved/acquired highe higher qualifications before 19.02.1979 and as such there would be no difference 5 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 13-01-2026 06:11:00 ::: 6 CWP-38957 38957 of 2025 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 rishan 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 dese 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 is no justification coming forth as regards the inordinate delay in having approached the Writ Court. There is also no explanation put for 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 6 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 13-01-2026 06:11:00 ::: 7 CWP-38957 38957 of 2025 v. Jaswant Singh and another (2006)11 SCC 464 :
2007(1) SCT 224.. 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 emplo 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. Even such petitions etitions 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. Un Union of India, (1989)2 SCC 356; Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana, 1998(1) SCT 26 : (1997)6 SCC 538 and Government of West Bengal v.
Tarun K. Roy, 2004(1) SCT 78 : (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 rincipal 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 reitrement ent 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 7 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 13-01-2026 06:11:00 ::: 8 CWP-38957 38957 of 2025 they are entitled to same relief or not? Therefore, a serious question that arise arises for consideration is whether the employees who did not wake up to challenge their retirement and accepted the same, collected their post-retirement retirement benefits, can such persons be given the relief in the light of the subsequent decision delivered by this ccourt?
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 on 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 ghts 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 rein 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 8 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 13-01-2026 06:11:00 ::: 9 CWP-38957 38957 of 2025 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 nefit 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 was also dealt with by this Court in Tarsem Pal v. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited andd 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. Claim in the writ petition was to grant to him the benefit of proficiency set up in the pay sscale 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.
uperannuation. 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 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 9 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 13-01-2026 06:11:00 ::: 10 CWP-38957 38957 of 2025 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 lach 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 serv 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 ncy 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 ioner 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.
3. 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 10 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 13-01-2026 06:11:00 ::: 11 CWP-38957 38957 of 2025 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 iling 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 aspect of delay in Saroj Kuma Kumar's case, were in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in M.R. Gupta vs. Union of India and others, 1996(1) SCT 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 ause 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 relief as prayed for and the petition tion deserves to be dismissed on the sole ground of delay and laches.
11 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 13-01-2026 06:11:00 ::: 12 CWP-38957 38957 of 2025
13. Ordered accordingly."
9. Further, the he Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal and another v. Sri Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari and others, 2013(12) 2013 SCC 179,, while considering the issue regarding delay and laches and 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 represen 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 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. 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. 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 settled matters, can certainly be refused on account ccount of delay and laches. Anyone Anyone who sleeps over his rights is bound to suffer the consequences.. An employee who remains dormant like a"Rip Rip Van Winkle' Winkle and awakens from his slumber at his own 12 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 13-01-2026 06:11:00 ::: 13 CWP-38957 38957 of 2025 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:
"13. We have no trace of doubt that the respondents could have challenged the ad hoc promotion co 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 aat 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) 08(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 examining the merits of the claim. In regar 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 13 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 13-01-2026 06:11:00 ::: 14 CWP-38957 38957 of 2025 with incomplete particulars may be replied by seeking relevant particulars.
lars. 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 actio 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 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.
11. From the aforesaid authorities, ies, 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 of action cannot rise like a phoenix. Similarly, larly, 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 14 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 13-01-2026 06:11:00 ::: 15 CWP-38957 38957 of 2025 respondent/workmen therein had remained silent mere making of representations could not justify such a belated approach.
12. In State of Orissa v. Sri Pyarimohan Samantaray and others, (1977) 3 SCC 396, 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. Shri Arun Kumar Patnaik and another, another (1976) 3 SCC 579.
13. In Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Ghanshyam Dass and others,, 2011 (4) SCC 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 07.07.1992.
14. 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 ppart 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
15 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 13-01-2026 06:11:00 ::: 16 CWP-38957 38957 of 2025 are alert and vigilant........."
15. In New Delhi Municipal Council v. Pan Singh and others, 2007 (9) SCC 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 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 set aside the order passed by the High Court which had exercised the discretionary jurisdiction.
16. In Union of India & Anrr vs Manpreet Singh Poonam Etc., 2022(4) SCT 550, 550, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has held as under:
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.
les. 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 up 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, others 2015(1) SCT 31 31, wherein the petitioner was claiming revision of pay scales w.e w.e.f. 04.01.2002, benefit 16 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 13-01-2026 06:11:00 ::: 17 CWP-38957 38957 of 2025 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.
18. 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 present writ petition filed by the petitioners after about 6 years of the retirement of even the last petitioner, cannot be allowed to be agitated, at this stage and consequently, the present petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches.
19. Dismissed (NAMIT KUMAR) 12.01.2026 JUDGE R.S. Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No 17 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 13-01-2026 06:11:00 :::