Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SHAM LAL GROVER – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
NAMIT KUMAR, J.
1. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to implement the order dated 03.03.2006 (Annexure P-3), whereby the petitioner’s pay was ordered to be fixed at par with his junior and consequently grant all consequential benefits including re-fixation of salary and pension along with release of arrears with interest.
2. Brief facts, as have been pleaded in the petition, are that the petitioner, who was an employee of the Punjab Government, retired from service on 30.11.2004. While he was in service, he had submitted a representation dated 16.01.2001 (Annexure P-1) seeking pay protection on the ground that his junior, namely Sh. Hardev Singh, was promoted on 30.01.1989 and his pay was fixed higher than that of the petitioner. The said representation was accepted by the respondent-department vide office order dated 03.03.2006 (Annexure P-3), whereby the pay of the petitioner was ordered to be fixed at par with his junior w.e.f. 30.01.1989. Since the petitioner had already retired from service on 30.11.2004, his case for re-fi
Delay in filing a writ petition can bar claims for relief, especially in service matters, as established by the principles of delay and laches.
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
