[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Niwas vs State Of Haryana And Others on 23 April, 2026
CWP-12235-2026 -1-
109
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP-12235-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision: 23.04.2026
Ram Niwas
... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana and others
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. P.R. Yadav, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Addl. AG, Haryana.
Mr. Prince Singh, Advocate
for respondents No.2 & 3.
*******
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
1. Present civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari seeking
quashing of the charge-sheet dated 07.11.2013 (Annexure P-7), inquiry report
dated 18.11.2014 (Annexure P-9), the order dated 08.11.2018 (Annexure P-
11) passed by respondent No.3, imposing penalty of recovery and the order
dated 31.05.2022 (Annexure P-13) passed by the Secretary of the respondent-
Board, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. Further to quash the
VISHNU
2026.04.27 13:08
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
memorandum of dated 08.11.2013 (Annexure P-14), order dated 04.11.2014
(Annexure P-15) passed by respondent No.3, vide which penalty of recovery
was imposed and the order dated 21.01.2022 (Annexure P-16) passed by the
Secretary of the respondent-Board, dismissing the appeal filed by the
petitioner. It is further prayed for modification of the order dated 28.02.2019
(Annexure P-22) passed by respondent No.3, whereby the petitioner was
promoted with immediate effect w.e.f. 28.02.2019 and thus was denied
promotion from the date i.e. 18.04.2012, when his juniors were promoted and
also to quash the order dated 08.09.2025 (Annexure P-29) passed by
respondent No.3, denying the promotion due to non-availability of vacant seat
in promotion quota (AMIE Degree holder) from 19.04.1991 to January, 2000.
It is also prayed to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the
official respondents to grant promotion and 2nd & 3rd ACP to the petitioner
with all the consequential benefits including interest on the delayed payments
as sought vide representation dated 26.12.2025 (Annexure P-32) and further
to grant interest on the delayed payment of gratuity granted vide
order/endorsement dated 23.02.2026 (Annexure P-34) from the date, it
became due.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the
petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer in the respondent-Board on
13.02.1981. After obtaining prior permission from the respondent-Board in
the year 1984, he pursued and completed his Bachelor of Engineering Degree
VISHNU
2026.04.27 13:08
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
during the year 1987-1990. Further, on 12.10.1990, the employees junior to
the petitioner were promoted as Sub Divisional Engineer (for short 'SDE').
Feeling aggrieved, he approached this Court by way of filing CWP-8154-
1993 and while deciding the said petition on 31.03.1994, promotion was set
aside and it was directed to consider petitioner's promotion from 12.10.1990.
The aforesaid judgment dated 31.03.1994 rendered by this Court was upheld
upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a contempt
petition and during pendency of the same, one ACR of the petitioner was
downgraded to below average, however, after representation, ACR was
treated as 'Good'. It is further submitted that in the year 1999, the petitioner
filed a writ petition i.e. CWP-9652-1999 and after that, another charge sheet
under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules,
1987 (for short 'Rules of 1987') was issued, however, the same was dropped
in the year 2000. Thereafter, vide order dated 21.01.2000 (Annexure P-1), the
petitioner was promoted as SDE and on 26.10.2009, he was assigned
officiating charge of Executive Engineer (XEN), Hisar and subsequently, on
10.12.2009, he was appointed as officiating Executive Engineer (XEN),
Gurugram. On 16.04.2010, the Superintending Engineer recommended
promotion of the petitioner, as discernible from letter (Annexure P-2).
3. It is further contended that on 13.05.2010, while discharging his
duties, the petitioner approved the payment of Rs.10.00 lakhs to a contractor
against a bill of Rs.33.00 lakhs, which is evident from the proceedings
VISHNU
2026.04.27 13:08
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
(Annexure P-3). Thereafter, on 19.05.2010, the contractor got registered an
FIR against the petitioner, in which, he was ultimately acquitted. Further, on
08.08.2013, the petitioner received copy of inquiry report dated 29.06.2010
(Annexure P-6), in which it is categorically stated that he acted in the interest
of respondent-Board in order to discharge his duties and he was not at fault.
Despite that, a charge-sheet under Rule 7 of Rules of 1987 was issued on
07.11.2013 (Annexure P-7) for making payment of Rs.10.00 lakhs to the
contractor, to which he submitted a reply on 04.12.2013 (Annexure P-8).
Thereafter, on 18.11.2024, inquiry report was submitted to respondent No.3
by the Inquiry Officer against the petitioner and other officers, as discernible
from Annexure P-9. After issuing show cause notice dated 09.02.2016 and on
receipt of reply dated 01.03.2016 (Annexure P-10), respondent No.3 passed
an order dated 08.11.2018 (Annexure P-11) imposing recovery to the tune of
5% of the total alleged loss of Rs.7,35,860/-, upon the petitioner. Against the
said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 21.11.2018 (Annexure P-12),
which was dismissed vide order dated 31.05.2022 (Annexure P-13).
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner next contends that on
08.11.2013, another charge sheet (Annexure P-14) under Rule 8 of Rules of
1987 was issued against the petitioner and on conclusion of the proceedings,
respondent No.3 passed an order dated 04.11.2014 (Annexure P-15) imposing
recovery of Rs.16,687/-. The statutory appeal filed by the petitioner against
the said order was dismissed on 21.01.2022, as discernible from Annexure P-
VISHNU
2026.04.27 13:08
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
16. Further, vide order dated 18.04.2012 (Annexure P-20), two persons junior
to the petitioners i.e. respondents No.4 & 5 were promoted as Executive
Engineers and the petitioner was promoted to the said post only on
28.02.2019 (Annexure P-22) and on the same day, he retired from service. It
is contended that the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner under Rule 7 of the
Rules of 1987 on 05.11.2020 was kept pending for about 05 years and it was
finally dropped on 27.10.2025 after his retirement, which is evident from
order (Annexure P-30) and after that, by issuing a letter dated 23.02.2026
(Annexure P-34), gratuity amount of Rs.17,85,168/- was sanctioned and while
deducting the recovery amount of Rs.53,480/-, remaining amount of
Rs.17,31,688/- was paid on 12.03.2026 even without interest. As such, the
petitioner is entitled to interest on delayed the payment of gratuity.
Furthermore, vide order dated 08.09.2025 (Annexure P-29), the petitioner was
denied promotion on the ground that no vacant post in promotional quota was
available from 19.04.1991 to January, 2000. It is also contended that while
deciding CWP-9652-1999 on 29.01.2025 (Annexure P-28), this Court
directed the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion,
if any promotional post was available during the period from 19.04.1991 to
January, 2000. In purported compliance, the claim of the petitioner was
declined by passing the impugned order dated 08.09.2025 (Annexure P-29).
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No.2 & 3 submits
that as far as challenge to orders dated 31.05.2022 (Annexure P-13) and
VISHNU
2026.04.27 13:08
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
21.01.2022 (Annxure P-16) dismissing the appeals filed by the petitioner are
concerned, the same are barred by the delay and laches. The petitioner
relinquished his right to challenge the said orders by remaining indolent for
more than 03 years. Further, his right to seek quashing of the order dated
28.02.2019 (Annexure P-22) and to get promotion from the date i.e.
18.04.2012, when his juniors were promoted, is time barred and the same also
suffers from delay and laches. Admittedly, right of the petitioner was
crystallized in the year 2012, when his juniors were promoted.
6. It is further submitted that as far as prayer for quashing of the
order dated 08.09.2025 (Annexure P-29) is concerned, this Court, while
disposing of CWP-9652-1999 on 29.01.2025 (Annexure P-28), directed the
respondents to consider whether any promotional post was available during
the period from 19.04.1991 to January, 2000 and if so, the petitioner is
entitled to said post. In compliance of the order (Annexure P-28), impugned
order dated 08.09.2025 (Annexure P-29) was passed giving therein the
complete details of all the officers, who were promoted during this period.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing
the record of the case file with their able assistance, it transpires that the
appellate authority passed the impugned orders on 31.05.2022 and
21.01.2022 (Annexures P-13 & P-16) dismissing the statutory appeals filed by
the petitioner and as such, on the ground of delay alone, this petition is liable
to be dismissed.
VISHNU
2026.04.27 13:08
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
8. Further, claim of the petitioner for promotion from the date i.e.
18.04.2012, when his juniors were promoted, is also barred by delay and
laches, as it is trite law that any grievance raised regarding promotion beyond
the period of 03 years is not permissible. Also, learned counsel for the
petitioner could not provide any satisfactory reason to justify the delay in
approaching this Court.
9. 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,
facts of the matter at hand indicate otherwise. Learned counsel for the
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:
"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
VISHNU
2026.04.27 13:08
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
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)
10. 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 reasoned enough to
dismiss a petition, as indolent litigants ought not to be encouraged by writ
Courts.
11. 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 be decided with reference to original cause of action and not with
VISHNU
2026.04.27 13:08
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
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.
12. 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 direction of a Court to consider
the 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.
13. Further, the prayer for quashing of the order dated 08.09.2025
(Annexure P-29) is entirely based upon the order dated 29.01.2025 (Annexure
P-28) passed by this Court in CWP-9652-1999, relevant part of which reads
as under: -
"In the wake of above discussion and findings, the petition
VISHNU
2026.04.27 13:08
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
stands disposed of with a direction to respondent to consider
whether any promotional post was available during April 1991
to January 2000. If any post was available, the petitioner is
entitled to said post because he has already been exonerated in
departmental proceedings and adverse remarks stands
expunged."
14. For ready reference, the relevant portion of the impugned order
dated 08.09.2025 (Annexure P-29) passed in compliance of the aforesaid
order dated 29.01.2025 (Annexure P-28) is as follows: -
"It is further pertinent to mention that the following officials
were senior to the petitioner, who had acquired degree of BE
and AMIE as per gradation list of Junior Engineers as on
01.01.1989 & 12.10.1990. The details of such officers including
the petitioner and Sh. Anil Garg are as follows-
Sr. S/Sh. Date of Seniority Type of Date of Promoted to the
No. joining Degree acquiring post of SDE
degree of
AMIE
1. Mukesh 12.03.1979 80 AMIE 31.10.1990 19.04.1991
Arora
2. Sham Sunder 21.04.1979 81 AMIE 1987 19.04.1991
Arora
3. Romesh 19.02.1980 94 AMIE 1987 15.12.1998
Garg w.e.f.
19.04.1991 and
regularized
w.e.f.
01.11.1995
4. Ram Niwas 13.02.1981 101 B.E. Aug, 1990 05.03.2001
(petitioner)
5. Anil Garg 04.02.1981 118 B.E. 1983 01.12.2010
Thereafter, the petitioner in the present petition filed
another CWP No.1699 of 1999 which was disposed of on
VISHNU
2026.04.27 13:08
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
09.02.1999 with the direction to decide the representations dated
04.01.1999. Therefore, in compliance of such orders, an another
speaking order dated 21.03.1999 was passed whereby the claim
of promotion of the order was again rejected on the ground that
his claim could not be considered on the basis of the seniority of
JEs.
Therefore, in view of position sketched above, it comes out
that the petitioner claimed the benefit of promotion from the
date, his juniors were promoted on the post of SDE. However, it
comes out that no junior to the petitioner was promoted on the
post of SDE except Sh. Anil Garg who was junior to the
petitioner. Moreover, Sh. Anil Garg who was promoted to the
post of SDE on adhoc basis has also been reverted to the post of
JE vide order dated 07.12.1994. Furthermore, Sh. Surender
Mohan Sharma, Sh. Mukesh Arora, Sh. S.S. Arora, Sh. Ramesh
Kumar Garg, (AMIE holders) were only promoted to the post of
SDE from 19.04.1991 to January, 2000 and they all are seniors
to the petitioner. Further, there was no other vacant seat of SDE
in promotion quota (AMIE degree holder) from 19.04.1991 to
January, 2000 which might be given to the petitioner. Thereafter,
the petitioner was promoted on the post of SDE as per the
vacancy on 05.03.2021. Therefore, claim of the petitioner cannot
be considered in view of the above factual position and decided
accordingly."
15. Further, claim of the petitioner for grant of 2nd and 3rd ACP is
also barred by delay and laches, as he retired on 28.02.2019 and he never
agitated regarding said claim during his service period and only for the first
time, as per his own pleadings, he filed representation dated 26.12.2025
VISHNU
2026.04.27 13:08
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
(Annexure P-32).
16. This Court, apart from grant of interest on the delayed payment
of gratuity, is not in a position to consider any claim in view of the
aforementioned facts and circumstances. Admittedly, the petitioner retired on
28.02.2019 and after his retirement, a charge-sheet issued to the petitioner
under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1987 on 05.11.2020, which was kept pending for
nearly 05 years and it was finally dropped vide order dated 27.10.2025
(Annexure P-30), which is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Prem Nath Bali Vs. Registrar, High Court of Delhi and
another, Civil Appeal No.958 of 2010, decided on 16.12.2015 and the
judgment of this Court in CWP-9606-2022 titled as Khairati Lal Vs. State of
Haryana and others, decided on 13.10.2025, wherein it has been held that the
disciplinary proceedings against an employee must be decided within a
reasonable time. Without concluding the disciplinary proceedings/enquiries
within suitable timeframe and in the absence of passing of any order of
punishment, the respondents cannot withhold part of the retiral dues of an
employee merely on the basis of an undertaking, which was taken under
compelled circumstances. Further, the respondent-Board took about 05 years
in releasing the amount of gratuity after retirement of the petitioner, which
was released only on 12.03.2026. As such, the petitioner is entitled to interest
on account of delay in releasing the payment of gratuity.
17. In the present case, the petitioner has approached this Court after
VISHNU
2026.04.27 13:08
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
a considerable lapse of time. Repeated representations will not keep the
issue(s) alive and no plausible explanation has been offered by learned
counsel for the petitioner for the delay in filing the present petition.
18. In view of the above discussion, present petition is disposed of
and the respondents are directed to pay the interest on the delayed payment of
gratuity @6% per annum to the petitioner, which is to be computed after two
months of his date of retirement i.e. 28.02.2019, in terms of judgment
rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in A.S. Randhawa Supg. Engineer
(Retd.) Vs. State of Punjab, 1998 (1) SCT 34 till the date of actual payment.
The needful be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt
of certified copy of this order.
19. The pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
[ HARPREET SINGH BRAR ]
23.04.2026 JUDGE
vishnu
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
VISHNU
2026.04.27 13:08
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
