IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
NAMIT KUMAR, J.
Mohan Singh Malhi – Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & Ors. – Respondents
CWP NO. 4543 of 2024 (O&M)
Decided On : 28-02-2024
JUDGMENT
Mr. Namit Kumar, J.
The petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus for directing the respondents to grant additional increment under selection grade from 01.10.1981, in view of the letter dated 07.11.1984, whereby approval for granting selection grade to the 20% of the permanent posts was also given, along with all consequential benefits and interest arising therefrom and also revised retirement benefits.
2. Facts, shorn of unnecessary details, necessitated for the disposal of present petition are that the petitioner was appointed and joined duties as Junior Clerk on 22.02.1977, in Nawanshahr Central Cooperative Bank Limited, and has retired from service. Vide circular dated 30.06.1977, issued by Government of Punjab, selection grade was allowed to 25% of the sanctioned posts in various cadre and one additional increment was also to be granted. Although the above said circular was ordered to be withdrawn vide letter dated 26.08.1982 by the Government with a clarification issued by the Department of Finance, vide letter dated 04.06.1991, that the cases of employees which fall between 30.06.1977 and 26.08.1982 are to be considered as per earlier instructions. On 07.11.1984, Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Punjab had issued approval for grant of revised grades to the employees of Cooperative Banks in Punjab to be effected from 01.10.1981. Thereafter, on the basis of clarification issued by Government of Punjab vide letter dated 04.06.1991 whereby selection grade was granted to the eligible category of employees in the cadre of Junior Clerk, the Punjab State Cooperative Bank, vide letter dated 06.12.1985, after grant of selection grade further granted one additional increment which came to be effective from 01.10.1981. Subsequently, a representation dated 12.03.2003 was submitted by 08 Junior Clerks including the petitioner to the District Manager, Cooperative Bank, Nawanshahr for grant of additional increment since they have already been given selection grade in terms of instructions dated 07.11.1984. Subsequently, the additional increment was granted to the other employees except the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner had made a representation dated 13.09.2022, after a period of 19 years, to the authorities concerned but to no avail. Thereafter, he has served a legal notice dated 19.06.2023 upon the respondents but no action has been taken thereupon. Hence, this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner is entitled for grant of additional increment under the selection grade from 01.10.1981 in pursuance to the letter dated 07.11.1984 and in consequent thereof, petitioner is getting less pension and other retrial benefits and the action of the respondents in not considering and deciding the claim of the petitioner is totally illegal and arbitrary and, therefore, he is entitled for the deficiency in pension and other retrial benefits along with interest thereupon.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
5. Concededly, the petitioner is claiming the benefit of additional increment w.e.f. 01.10.1981, in pursuance to the letter dated 07.11.1984. Petitioner is having age of 73 years and has retired from service. In the entire petition, the date of retirement of petitioner has not been incorporated. A perusal of the record would reveal that the other employees had been given additional increment in year 2003. However, the petitioner also stated to have given representation in 2003 and has espoused his cause thereafter in year 2022 by way of representation dated 13.09.2022, after a period of 19 years. No explanation has been given as to why the claim raised in the instant petition was not agitated by the petitioner after the year 2003. The present petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches as the petitio
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Ghanshyam Dass
C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining
Chairman, U.P. Jal Nigam v. Jaswant Singh
Government of West Bengal v. Tarun K. Roy
Harwindra Kumar v. Chief Engineer, Karmik
Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana
New Delhi Municipal Council v. Pan Singh
Rup Diamonds v. Union of India
State of Orissa v. Arun Kumar Patnaik
State of Orissa v. Pyarimohan Samantaray
Claims for additional increments post-retirement are barred by delay and laches, emphasizing the need for timely action by employees.
Claims for promotional increments must be raised within a reasonable time, particularly before retirement; delay can bar relief.
Delay in filing a writ petition can bar claims for relief, especially in service matters, as established by the principles of delay and laches.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.