JUDGMENT :

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. 

1. Prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the order dated 10.02.2026 (Annexure P-10) vide which the claim of the petitioners for promotion as FM-III, FM-II and FM-I from the date their juniors namely Jai Kumar and Sultan Singh have been promoted and the petitioners be granted all the consequential benefits or in alternative, the petitioners be promoted as FM-III, FM-II and FM-I from the date their juniors i.e. Jai Kumar and Sultan Singh have been promoted notionally and actual benefits be granted from the date the petitioners have attained the age of superannuation.

2. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that the petitioners were appointed in the Thermal Power Plant and they have been agitating their service rights since 1995. The petitioners had initially filed a civil suit which was decreed in their favour vide judgment and decree dated 25.03.1995 passed by learned Sub-Judge Ist Class, Panipat, however, the said decree was set-aside in appeal on 07.04.1997, which led to the filing of RSA No.2173 of 1997 before this Court. During the pendency of the said proceedings, one of the junior, namely Jai Kumar, withdrew from the said RSA and instituted a fresh civil suit in the year 2001, which was decreed on 31.05.2003 and the appeal preferred by the respondent/Corporation was dismissed on 13.02.2004, pursuant to which he was granted promotion to the post of FM-III vide order dated 18.11.2005. He further submits that another junior, namely Sultan Singh, was also granted promotions as FM-III w.e.f. 16.01.1986, FM-II w.e.f. 22.06.2007 and FM-I w.e.f. 25.07.2011. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners further contends that as per the seniority list, petitioner No.1 Om Parkash is placed at Sr. No.30 and petitioner No.2 Rajbir is placed at Sr. No. 81, whereas Jai Kumar is placed at Sr. No.88 and Sultan Singh is placed at Sr. No.158, which clearly indicates that the petitioners are senior to the aforesaid employees, yet they have been denied similar benefits. He further submits that the petitioners withdrew the aforesaid RSA on 07.08.2025 with liberty to institute appropriate proceedings to claim parity with Jai Kumar. Thereafter, the petitioners served a demand notice dated 22.08.2025, which remained unheeded and the petitioners were compelled to approach this Court by filing CWP No.32682 of 2025, which was disposed of on 06.11.2025 with a direction to decide their representation. In purported compliance, their claim has been rejected vide impugned order dated 10.02.2026 solely on the ground of delay and laches.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioners were initially engaged on work-charge basis as petitioner No.1 was engaged on 01.08.1974 and petitioner No.2 was engaged on 19.04.1975, respectively, followed by their regularization. He further submits that the claim of the petitioners by relying upon the promotion of Jai Kumar and Sultan Singh is totally misplaced. The present writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, as the cause of action, if any, arose when the juniors, namely Jai Kumar and Sultan Singh, were promoted, i.e. as early as 16.01.1986, 18.11.2005, 22.06.2007 and 25.07.2011, whereas the petitioners have raised their claim for the first time on 22.08.2025. He further submits that mere higher placement in the seniority list, being at Sr. Nos.30 and 81 as against Sr. Nos.88 and 158, does not entitle the petitioners to claim promotion after such an inordinate delay, particularly when they failed to challenge the promotions at the relevant time. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that withdrawal of RSA on 07.08.2025, issuance of demand notice dated 22.08.2025 and disposal of earlier writ petition on 06.11.2025 do not revive a stale cause of action. The petitioner