Thursday, 21, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Jagroop Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 249 P&H

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 249 P&H
Judgement Date : 8 January, 2024

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Jagroop Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 8 January, 2024

                                                         Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:001037



                                                                2024:PHHC:001037


CWP-74-2024                                                                        -1-


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                         AT CHANDIGARH


128                                             CWP-74-2024
                                                Date of Decision: 08.01.2024

Jagroop Singh                                                          ...Petitioner


                                      Versus


State of Punjab and Others                                          ...Respondents



CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present:-     Mr. Arjun Dev, Advocate for
              Mr. Vivek K. Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner
              Mr. Inderpreet Singh Kang, AAG, Punjab
              ***
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of

the Constitution of India is seeking direction to the respondents to re-fix

increment of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2012 instead of 01.02.2012.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was promoted from the post

of Constable to Head Constable in 2012. The petitioner was entitled to

increment w.e.f. 01.01.2012 but without seeking option from the petitioner,

the respondent fixed increment of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.02.2012.

Resultantly, every year, increment was extended to the petitioner w.e.f. 01st

February instead of 01st January. The State Government implemented

recommendations of 6th CPC w.e.f. 01.01.2016. The respondent, at that point

of time also granted increment w.e.f. 01st day of February instead of 01st day

of January. The petitioner retired in 2019. The petitioner came to know of this

1 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:001037

2024:PHHC:001037

fact when he noticed that similarly situated retirees are getting more pension

than him.

3. The petitioner indubitably was in service from 2012 to 2019. The

respondent committed mistake, if any, in 2012. The petitioner continued to

accept increment w.e.f. 01st day of February every year and never raised any

grouse either before retirement or within reasonable period from his

retirement.

4. No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down as to when the High

Court should refuse to exercise its jurisdiction in favour of a party who moves

it after considerable delay and is otherwise guilty of laches. Discretion must

be exercised judiciously and reasonably. In the event that the claim made by

the applicant is legally sustainable, delay should be condoned. Where

illegality is manifest, cannot be sustained on the sole ground of laches. When

substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other,

the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. State cannot deprive

vested right because of a non-deliberate delay.

5. A Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 04.04.2018

in Kartar Singh v. Managing Director, HVPNL and others, CWP No.26962

of 2015, after noticing various judgments of Apex Court has dismissed similar

petition on the ground that writ petition has been filed after a long time from

the date of retirement.

6. A Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.05.2015 in

Sandeep Kharab v. State of Haryana and others, CWP No.5965 of 2011;

order dated 04.09.2012 in Bal Krishan v. State of Punjab and others, CWP

2 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:001037

2024:PHHC:001037

No.18498 of 2011 and order 29.11.2012 in Tarsem Pal v. Punjab State

Power Corporation Limited and others, CWP No.13965 of 2010 has

dismissed petitions on the ground that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked at

the will and convenience of the litigant. Anyone who claims rights must be

vigilant and he must enforce his rights within reasonable time.

In the case in hand, the petitioner opted to remain silent from

2012 to 2019 i.e. during his service as well as 2019 to 2023 i.e. post

retirement. By his act and conduct, the petitioner acquiesced to action of the

respondents and waived off his right, if any.

7. In the wake of judgments of this Court and considering

inordinate delay on the part of petitioner, this Court does not find it

appropriate to invoke its extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction. The present petition

deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.





                                                      (JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
                                                            JUDGE
08.01.2024
Mohit Kumar

                  Whether speaking/reasoned         Yes/No
                      Whether reportable            Yes/No




                                                        Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:001037

                                    3 of 3

 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : MAIMS

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter