Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
NAMIT KUMAR
Brij Mohan Datta – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Namit Kumar J.
The petitioners have approached this Court by way of filing the instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 18.02.2014 (Annexure P-3), passed by respondent No.3, whereby their claim for grant of additional increments on completion of 24/32 years of service as per the Assured Career Progression Scheme, 1998, has been rejected, with a further prayer to release the same with all consequential benefits.2. Brief facts of the case, as have been pleaded in the petition, are that the petitioners joined the office of Municipal Corporation, Amritsar between the year 1969 to 1971 as Clerks and thereafter, they were promoted on 19.10.2004 and 20.10.2004 as Inspectors and they have retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation between the years 2005 to 2009. It is the case of the petitioners that they were entitled for the grant of additional increments on completion of 24/32 years of service in terms of Assured Career Progression Scheme (Annexure P-1) and since the said benefit was not granted to them while they were in service, petitioners No.1 to 6 served a legal no
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.
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
