Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
HARBANS LAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
NAMIT KUMAR, J.
1. Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 09.07.2025 (Annexure P-7), passed by respondent No.3, whereby two increments stopped, vide order dated 21.11.2008, in charge-sheet No.4035/TA dated 24.12.2007 (Annexure P-1) have not been restored on 01.12.2010 on the ground that the petitioner had retired from service on 31.05.2010 and the effect of punishment was to remain in effect till 01.12.2010. Further prayer has been made for directing the respondents to restore the two increments with effect from 01.12.2010 and release all the service benefits due on account of restoration of increments, along with interest from the date they fell due till the date actual payment is made and fix the pension of the petitioner accordingly.
2. Brief facts of the case, as pleaded in the petition, are that the petitioner was employed as a Conductor with the respondent-department and retired on 31.05.2010. While in service, petitioner was issued charge-sheets dated 22.08.2001 and 24.12.2007. Inquiry proceedings were held in both the cases and the petiti
Claims for additional increments post-retirement are barred by delay and laches, emphasizing the need for timely action by employees.
Claims for promotional increments must be raised within a reasonable time, particularly before retirement; delay can bar relief.
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
