Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Surinder Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Jagmohan Bansal, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking direction to respondents to consider him from the date of joining of other candidates.
2. The petitioner retired from Indian Army on 30.11.2010. The Respondent-Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam advertised post of Assistant Lineman in 2011. He participated in the selection process. The result was declared on 04.10.2012 wherein name of petitioner did not figure. He approached this Court by way of Civil Writ Petition No. 137 of 2013. During the pendency of said petition, the respondent found him eligible for the post. He was issued appointment letter on 29.05.2013 and he joined on 02.07.2013. He retired on 31.03.2021. He claims that his date of appointment should be considered from October' 2012 instead of July' 2013.
3. The petitioner joined on 02.07.2013 without raising objection to the effect that his date of joining should be October'2012 like other employees who had joined pursuant to the same advertisement. He raised objection after his retirement in March' 2021 and respondents rejected his claim.
4. Civil Writ Petition No. 137 of 2013 was d
Point of Law : Doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in ....
Claims for additional increments post-retirement are barred by delay and laches, emphasizing the need for timely action by employees.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
