Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dai Ram vs Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd And ... on 24 April, 2024
Author: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Bench: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055747
2024:PHHC:055747
CWP-17869-2022 -1-
246
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
***
CWP-17869-2022
Date of Decision: 24.04.2024
Dai Ram ..... Petitioner
Versus
Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. and another ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
Present: Mr. V.D. Sharma, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Ms. Nisha Kanojia, Advocate for
Mr. Satyam Tandon, Advocate,
for the respondents.
****
JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (ORAL)
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227
of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari
for setting aside the impugned order dated 02.08.2022 (Annexure P-7) vide
which the claim of the petitoiner for counting the Military Service rendered
during the period of proclamation of National Emergency from 15.04.1961
to 30.06.1970 towards increments, seniority and pension in terms of Rule 4
of the Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965
dated 20.07.1965 (Annexure P-3) as applicable by respondent No.2 being
absolutely illegal, arbitrary and against the policy for promotion of the
persons.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that vide order
dated 20.09.2022, the petitioner had restricted his claim only to the extent of
grant of benefit of military service benefits towards the pension only and
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055747
2024:PHHC:055747
therefore, he may be granted the benefit of counting of military service for
grant of pension only and therefore, a direction may be issued for
recomputation of his pensionary benefits. He further submitted that the
petitioner after rendering his services in military, joined the respondent-
Nigam and thereafter, retired on 30.06.1999. He also submitted that the
aforesaid benefit for counting of military service in view of the period of
National Emergency from 1961-1970 was his statutory right and the mere
fact that there has been a delay in filing of the present petition cannot
become a ground for denial of the benefit which are the benefits pertaining
to the pension and which are statutorily available. He further submitted that
rather it was the duty of the respondent-Nigam to have considered his claim,
since it was within the knowledge of the Nigam that the petitioner had
rendered services during the National Emergency and he was entitled for the
same.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that it is not
a case of the respondent nor it has been so stated in the reply that the
petitioner was not entitled for the claim but only objection which has been
raised by the respondent-Nigam is that the claim of the petitioner is hit by
the doctrine of delay and laches because he has taken about 23 years to
approach this Court by filing the present writ petition.
4. On the other hand, Ms. Nisha Kanojia, Advocate appearing on
behalf of Mr. Satyam Tandon, learned counsel for the respondents submitted
that it is correct that the Nigam is not disputing the entitlement of the
petitioner but he could not have approached this Court after a lapse of about
23 years and his petition is hit by the doctrine of delay and laches. She
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055747
2024:PHHC:055747
further submitted that the impugned order 02.08.2022 (Annexure P-7) has
also been passed only on the ground of delay.
5. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
6. The entitlement of the petitioner for his service rendered during
the National Emergency is not in dispute. The petitioner has restricted his
claim only to the extent of counting of his military service for grant of
pensionary benefits. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for
the petitioner has also stated that the petitioner would restrict his arrears only
for the preceeding 38 months.
7. This Court is of the considered view that the entitlement of the
petitioner is not in dispute in the present case and the only ground which has
been taken by the petitioner was of delay which has to be seen in the light of
the prayer which has been made by the petitioner. The prayer of the
petitioner is for refixation of his pension. It is a settled law that for grant of
pension and pensionary benefits, the cause of action would always be
recurring and continuous on the principles of de die in diem. During the
course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner also made a reference
to a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in "Hoshiar Singh Vs. UOI
and others" 2006(4) RSJ 166 to contend that the delay and laches is not a
rule of law but it is a rule of prudence, which may not be used in the cases
like payment of pension especially to the Army Personnel. He referred to
another judgment of this Court in "Chaman Lal Vs. Union of India"
2021(2) SCT 278, again to contend that delay would not be a ground for
non-suiting the petitioner.
8. The petitioner is claiming his service to be considered at the
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055747
2024:PHHC:055747
time when he served the nation in the National Emergency. Therefore, on
this ground only, the petitioner cannot be non-suited on the ground of delay
and laches. At the most, he will not be entitled for the arrears because he has
approached this Court by filing a present petition after a lapse of 23 years.
9. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. The
respondents are directed to recompute the pension of the petitioner after
counting his service which he rendered during the National Emergency and
after fixing the pension, he shall be paid the pension accordingly. However,
so far as the arrears which the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that it may be restricted only to the extent of 38 months is concerned, he will
not be entitled for the same in view of the aforesaid delay and the aforesaid
direction will be only prospective in nature.
24.04.2024 (JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
Bhumika JUDGE
1. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
2. Whether reportable: Yes/No
4 of 4
