The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of delay and laches in seeking relief after retirement, emphasizing that such claims should be made within a reasonable time and that delay may deprive the claimant of the benefit given to others.

JUDGMENT :

(Namit Kumar, J.) :

1. The petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court by filing the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus for directing the respondents to count the work charge/daily wage services rendered by the petitioner, followed by regular service, be taken into account as qualifying service for computing the pensionary benefits.

2. The brief facts as have been pleaded in the writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed on 01.03.1979 on work charge basis and thereafter, his services were regularized on 12.08.1994 as Assistant Lineman and he retired as such on 30.04.2016, on attaining the age of superannuation. He served a legal notice dated 14.09.2023 for counting his work charge service upon the respondents but, however, no action has been taken by the respondents. Hence this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the work charge service of the petitioner is liable to be counted for the pensionary benefits. He has placed reliance upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in “Kesar Chand vs State of Punjab and others”, 1989(1) RSJ 629. He further submits that since no action has been taken by the respondents on the legal notice dated 14.09.2023. He also places reliance upon CWP No.11081 of 2015 titled as ‘Simarjit Singh vs PSPCL and another’, decided on 19.03.2019 (Annexure P-2) filed by similarly situated persons for extending the benefit of the said judgment to the petitioner.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents, who appeared on receipt of advance copy of the petition, has strongly opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. She submits that the petitioner has already superannuated on 30.04.2016 and relief sought to be claimed cannot be granted at belated stage.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

6. In Para 2 of the writ petition, it has been averred that the petitioner was appointed on 01.03.1979 on work charge basis and thereafter, his services were regularized on 12.08.1994 as Assistant Lineman and he retired from service on 30.04.2016 on attaining the age of superannuation. No details have been given with regard to the work charge service and on which post, he was appointed initially in the entire petition. It has further been averred that the legal notice dated 14.09.2023 (Annexure P-3) was served upon the respondents for counting the work charge service of the petitioner. The said legal notice has been served by the petitioner after a period of 07 years and 05 months, after his superannuation. Once the relationship of master and servant has come to an end on retirement of an employee, the petitioner cannot agitate the stale issues after so many years. If the claim of the petitioner for revised pay scale was genuine, he could have agitated the same while he was in service. The Division Bench of this Court in “H.S. Gill vs Union of India and others”, 2016(2) SCT 477, has held that an employee cannot claim the revised pay scale after retirement once he has been receiving the pay scale granted by the employer for the last 09 years. The relevant portion from the said judgment, reads as under:-

“14. The petitioner is also not entitled to any relief on account of principle of delay and laches. He has been receiving the pay in the pay scale of ` 6500-10500 right from his transfer to CSIO, Chandigarh i.e. 2.7.2002. For the first time, he moved the representation on 29.8.2011, so, he kept mum for about 9 years. Thus, the claim of the petitioner is highly belated and stale.”

6. In a recent judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in “Ram Kumar vs State of Haryana and others”, 2022 (3) SCT 346, while rejecting the claim of the petitioner for counting of his ad hoc service, for the purpose of seniority/pension and regularization in service on completion of 02 years as per policy, held that the petition filed by h