Harbans Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 5262 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Harbans Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 18 November, 2025

CWP-34371-2025                     -1-

117          IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                         AT CHANDIGARH

                                                 CWP-34371-2025
                                                 Date of decision: 18.11.2025


Harbans Singh                                                      ....Petitioner


                                     Versus


State of Punjab and others                                       ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Present:     Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate for
             Mr. K.L. Arora, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

             Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab.

             Mr. Balram Singh, Advocate
             for respondent No.3.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The present civil 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 quashing the impugned order dated 02.09.2025 (Annexure P-25)

and, for directing the respondents to grant the salary for the period from

30.12.1984 to 11.09.1990 for performing the duties and responsibilities of the

higher post of Octroi Clerk along with interest @ 18% per annum.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the

petitioner was appointed as a Peon on 12.12.1984. However, from the very

beginning, the petitioner has been assigned the duties and responsibilities of

higher post i.e. Octroi Clerk, as discernible from multiple duty rosters

(Annexures P-13 to P-22, respectively). The petitioner was also eventually

1 of 7

promoted to Clerk later on, on 16.04.2003 with retrospective effect. The

petitioner claims the salary differential for the period he worked as Octroi Clerk

but was paid the salary of a Peon w.e.f. 30.12.1984 to 11.09.1990. The case of

the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court

passed in CWP No.13002 of 2002 titled as 'Hardev Singh and another Vs.

State of Punjab and others' where similarly situated employees were granted

the pay of higher officiating posts. The LPA filed by the State against this

judgment was dismissed. Learned counsel further refers to the judgment

rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'P. Grover Vs. State of Haryana'

1983 (4) SCC 291 to support his case. He further submits that this Court passed

in CWP No.9741 of 2021 titled as 'Surinder Parkash Dhiman and others Vs.

Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited' has held that doctrine of delay and

laches does not apply to salary claims. The issue involved in the present writ

petition already stands settled, in terms of the judgment of the Coordinate

Bench of this Court in 'Satbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana' 2002 (2) S.C.T.

354 where similarly situated persons have been granted relief by an order of

this Court. As such, it is not necessary for all other similarly situated persons to

individually approach this Court. In this context, he further refers to Annexure

P-11, the order vide which similarly situated employees have been granted the

benefit of pay for officiating higher post. Lastly, the petitioner had approached

this Court by filing CWP No.12439 of 2025 which was disposed of vide order

dated 03.07.2025 (Annexure P-23) with a direction to decide the his

representation. In purported compliance, the claim of the petitioner has been

rejected by deviating from the issues settled by this Court.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3 opposes the

2 of 7

prayer made by the petitioner and submits that admittedly, the petitioner was

appointed as a Peon and worked on higher post as Octroi Clerk from

30.12.1984 to 11.09.1990. The rights of the petitioner crystallized about 35

years ago. The case filed by the petitioner is hopelessly time barred and filing

representation at this stage or having his legal notice decided in terms of the

order passed by this Court would not revive his stale claim. Moreover, since the

petitioner has retired on 31.12.2021, it cannot be said that it is a case of

recurring cause of action.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the

record, it transpires that the petitioner had performed the duties and shouldered

responsibilities assigned to a higher post from 30.12.1984 to 11.09.1990. The

petitioner retired on 31.12.2021 however, while in service, he never made any

claims regarding the grant of salary corresponding to that of a higher post for

the aforesaid period.

5. It is trite law that the delay in approaching this Court under Article

226 of the Constitution of India may be condoned if sufficient cause is

indicated or a reasonable explanation is provided for the same. However, the

facts of the matter at hand indicate otherwise. Learned counsel petitioner has

failed to specify any compelling or extenuating circumstance which prevented

him from approaching this Court for such a long time. Reference in this regard

may be made to the judgment rendered by a three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Chairman/Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation

Limited and Others vs. Ram Gopal (2021) 13 SCC 225, wherein, the following

was held:

3 of 7

"16. Whilst it is true that limitation does not strictly apply to proceedings under Articles 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India, nevertheless, such rights cannot be enforced after an unreasonable lapse of time. Consideration of unexplained delays and inordinate laches would always be relevant in writ actions, and writ courts naturally ought to be reluctant in exercising their discretionary jurisdiction to protect those who have slept over wrongs and allowed illegalities to fester. Fence- sitters cannot be allowed to barge into Courts and cry for their rights at their convenience, and vigilant citizens ought not to be treated alike with mere opportunists. On multiple occasions, it has been restated that there are implicit limitations of time within which writ remedies can be enforced. In SS Balu v. State of Kerala, this Court observed thus:

"17. It is also well settled principle of law that "delay defeats equity". .... It is now a trite law that where the writ petitioner approaches the High Court after a long delay, reliefs prayed for may be denied to them on the ground of delay and laches irrespective of the fact that they are similarly situated to the other candidates who obtain the benefit of the judgment."" (emphasis added)

6. Further, in Mrinmoy Maity vs. Chhanda Koley and others 2024

AIR SC 2717, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically observed that the

High Courts must factor in the delay, while exercising its discretionary powers

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was further opined that undue

and unexplained delay may be reason enough to dismiss a petition as indolent

litigants ought not to be encouraged by writ Courts.

7. In State of Uttaranchal vs. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari, (2013)

12 SCC 179, while considering the issue regarding delay and laches and

referring to earlier judgments on the issue, a two-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court opined that repeated representations made will not keep the

issues alive. A stale or a dead issue/dispute cannot be got revived even if such a

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

4 of 7

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 deprive him of the benefit which had been given to others. Article 14 of

the Constitution of India, in a situation of that nature, will not be attracted as it

is well settled that law leans in favour of those who are alert and vigilant.

8. In Union of India and others vs. M. K. Sarkar, (2010) 2 SCC 59,

the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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 action for reviving

the 'dead' issue or 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 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.

9. Moreover, with regards to issues regarding fixation of pay, the

position of law has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.R. Gupta

vs. Union of India, (1995) 5 SCC 628 and has also been reaffirmed by a Full

Bench decision of this Court in Saroj Kumari vs. State of Punjab, 1998(3)

SCT 664. Accordingly, so long as an employee is in service, a petition claiming

refixation of pay is not barred by limitation or the doctrine of laches, as the

denial of benefit occurs every month when the salary is paid, thereby giving

rise to a fresh cause of action, based on continuing wrong. Such a case is not

that of one time action like termination or dismissal from service. However,

5 of 7

once an employee ceases to be in service, the wrong fixation of pay can no

longer be treated as a continuing wrong. Consequently, a petition seeking such

fixation, if instituted after cessation of service and with substantial delay, is

liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. Reliance in this regard

can be placed on the judgement rendered by a Co-ordinate bench of this Court

in Prem Nath vs. State of Punjab, 2018(2) SCT 687, wherein the petitioners

approached this Court seeking correct fixation of pay much subsequent to their

superannuation. While dismissing the petition on the ground of delay and

laches, the Court held as follows:

"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 Kumar's case, were in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in M.R. Gupta v. Union of India and others, 1996(1) S.C.T 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 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." (emphasis supplied)

10. Adverting to the matter at hand, clearly there has been a

substantial delay on part of the petitioner in moving this Court. It has not been

the case of the petitioner that efforts were made to claim the higher post salary

while he was in service. Thus, repeated representations cannot be used as a

means to keep this issues alive, especially in absence of any plausible

explanation for the inordinate delay in approaching this Court.

6 of 7

11. In view of the discussion above, this Court does not find it

appropriate to invoke its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed.

12. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand

disposed of.

                                                (HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
                                                      JUDGE
18.11.2025
Neha

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




                                       7 of 7