Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 12115 P&H
Judgement Date : 7 August, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:101851
CWP-17008-2023 -1- 2023:PHHC:101851
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
129 CWP-17008-2023
Date of Decision: 07.08.2023
Mohinder Singh and another .... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Present: Mr. Harjeet Singh Minhas, Advocate and
Mr. P.K. Madan, Advocate and
Ms. Amrit Kaur, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Paramjit Batta, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
*****
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J (ORAL)
1. The petitioners by way of this petition challenge the order
passed by the respondents dated 25.06.1981 and 30.11.1981, whereby, two
increments were stopped with cumulative effect and the order passed in
appeal dated 27.08.1996, whereby, the appeal preferred against the said two
orders, was dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that so far as other
punishments are concerned, the same were modified by the Appellate
Authority while the said two orders have remained intact and the petitioners,
therefore, seek to challenge the said orders.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the
delay would not come in his way as it is a continuous cause of action. He
relies upon a Supreme Court judgment in the case of 'M.R. Gupta Vs.
Union of India', 1995(4) RSJ SC 502. He also relies upon a Full Bench
judgment of this Court in the case of 'Saroj Kumari Vs. State of Punjab',
1998(5) SLR 266, to submit that the delay would not come in his way.
1 of 2
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:101851
CWP-17008-2023 -2- 2023:PHHC:101851
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners at length and
have considered the submissions.
5. This Court noticed that the order of punishment awarded to the
petitioners dated 25.06.1981 and 30.11.1981 have not been placed on record
and only particulars about the petitioners and their details have been
mentioned in Annexure P-1 which do not show whether a regular inquiry
was conducted in 1981 or not. Further, this Court finds that in the Appellate
order, for the two orders of 1981, the Appellate Authority found that based
on the sudden checking of the buses by the checking staff, he was awarded
punishment. The appeals have been dismissed on merits in 1996. After that
order of punishment and order in appeal, the petitioners did not prefer any
writ petition nor raised any industrial disputes in relation to the said
punishments. Further, it is not a case where there is a wrongful fixation nor
can it be said to be a continuous cause of action. Since the punishments
were awarded in 1981, the increments were stopped for the year 1981 and
1982 only while the petitioners have already retired and have filed the
present petition almost 30 years from the passing of the appellate order, the
contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petition does not
suffer from any delay and latches, is found to be wholly erroneous.
6. Keeping in view the above, the present petition suffers from
unexplained delay and latches and accordingly, the same is dismissed.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA)
07.08.2023 JUDGE
D.Bansal
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:101851
2 of 2
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!