Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ashwani Kumar vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 22 October, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137908
CWP-28458-2024 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(111) CWP-28458-2024
Date of Decision : October 22, 2024
Ashwani Kumar .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others .. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Abhishek Khullar, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms. Shruti, AAG, Punjab.
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)
1. In the present writ petition, the grievance being raised by the
petitioner is that he was not granted the benefit of ACP on completion of 18
years service and 24 years of service, which is arbitrary and illegal and the
petitioner was entitled for the grant of the same while in service.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that non-grant of the
benefit to the petitioner is causing prejudice to him hence, the respondents
are under an obligation to grant the petitioner the service benefit which he
was entitled for on completion of 18 and 24 years of service.
3. Keeping in view the service of advance copy of petition, Ms.
Shruti, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, has appeared and
submits that the petitioner retired from service 17 years ago in the year 2007
and he is raising the grievance of non-grant of service benefit in the year
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137908
2024, which is not at all maintainable.
4. Learned State counsel further submits that the benefit which is
being claimed by the petitioner is liable to be rejected on the ground of
delay itself.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
6. In the present writ petition, the petitioner retired on attaining
the age of superannuation in the year 2007. That had the petitioner not been
granted any service benefit, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to
approach the authorities concerned or the competent Court of law within a
specific time frame in case the authorities are not agreeing to grant the
benefit which the petitioner think he is entitled for. After a period of 17
years of retirement, the writ petition cannot be filed claiming the service
benefits.
7. Even otherwise, the respondents have mentioned that petitioner
retired 17 years ago and as of now, even the service record pertaining to the
petitioner has been destroyed. That being so, the petitioner cannot be
allowed to agitate his claim for the grant of service benefits after retirement
and that too when 17 years have passed after the retirement.
8. As per the settled principle of law settled by the Coordinate
Bench of this Court in CWP No. 28508 of 2013 titled as Suraj Mal vs. The
State of Haryana and others, decided on 29.09.2014, the delay in
approaching the Court is to be treated fatal in case there is no valid
justification. Relevant paragraph of the said judgment is as under:-
"In Bal Krishan v. State of Punjab and others, 2013(2)
RSJ 18, wherein the petitioner, after rendering about 34 years
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137908
CWP-28458-2024 3
of service, sought refixation of his pay from the date he joined
service by filing a petition more than three years after his
retirement. This court dismissed the writ petition on account of
delay and laches only.
In view of the above authoritative enunciation of law by
Hon'ble the Supreme Court and this Court, the present writ
petition filed by the petitioner nearly after 9 years of his
retirement to claim certain benefits, which may be due to him
while in service, certainly deserves to be dismissed on account
of delay and laches as there is no satisfactory explanation
available for delay."
9. In the present case, no valid justification has come from the
petitioner for not availing his rights at the time when the petitioner felt
prejudice of non-grant of ACP on account of completion of 18 and 24 years
of service, which is a service benefit to an employee while in service.
Petitioner kept sleeping upon his rights even after 17 years of his retirement
and he cannot agitate the same now.
10. No ground is made out for any interference at this stage in the
facts and circumstances of the present case.
11. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
October 22, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
harsha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
