IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
NAMIT KUMAR, J.
Karnail Singh – Petitioner
Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. – Respondents
CWP NO.2535 of 2024
Decided On : 06-02-2024
JUDGMENT
Namit Kumar, J.
Petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by filing the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 29.08.2023 (Annexure P-5) whereby his claim for grant of promotional increment on completion of 23 years of regular service in view of circular dated 23.04.1990 has been rejected. Further a writ of mandamus has been sought to grant the benefit of promotional increment to the petitioner, in view of circulars dated 23.04.1990 (Annexure P-1) and 28.07.2000 (Annexure P-3).
2. Brief facts, as have been emanated from the petition, are that the petitioner joined as Lower Division Clerk (LDC) on 21.04.1970 in the erstwhile Electricity Board (now PSPCL). He was granted second time bound promotional scale on 21.09.1989 after 16 years of regular service. It has been averred that the petitioner was entitled for third promotion increment on 20.09.1996. He retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.08.2006 from the post of Upper Division Clerk (UDC). Petitioner is claiming the promotional increment on completion of 23 years service in terms of circular dated 23.04.1990 (Annexure P-1). It has further been pleaded in the petition that the petitioner along with others had earlier filed CWP No.2346 of 2017 - Darshan Lal and others v. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and others, in which he was petitioner No.3. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 27.03.2023 along with a bunch of petitions in terms of directions issued in CWP No.27130 of 2019 - Shavinder Singh v. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others. The concluding paras of order dated 27.03.2023 read as under: -
Sd/-
(Pankaj Jain)
Judge"
3. The case of the petitioner was considered by the respondent-Corporation and has been rejected vide order dated 29.08.2023 impugned herein with the following reasons: -
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Ghanshyam Dass
C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining
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 promotional increments must be raised within a reasonable time, particularly before retirement; delay can bar relief.
Claims for additional increments post-retirement are barred by delay and laches, emphasizing the need for timely action by employees.
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.