CWP-17184-2016

-1-

221

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

****

CWP-17184-2016

Date of Decision: 12.05.2022

Ram Chander

..... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and another

..... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

Present:

Mr. Jaspal Singh Maanipur, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

Mr. Narender Singh Behgal, AAG, Haryana.

*****

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, claiming

that once one Swaran Singh Bawa, who was junior to the petitioner, was

promoted to the post of Company Commander on 31.07.1986 by wrongly

ignoring the petitioner and thereafter another employee, namely Wazir

Chand, who was also junior to the petitioner, was initially promoted to the

said post on 17.05.2005 but thereafter w.e.f. 31.07.1986, the petitioner is

also entitled for the grant of promotion to the post of Company Commander,

with effect from the date when the said junior, namely Swaran Singh, was

promoted to the said post. The reliance is being placed upon the order

passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP-4301-1998, titled as

“Wazir Chand Vs. State of Haryana and others”, decided on 21.07.2015,

to contend that once the said Wazir Chand has been granted the benefit of

retrospective promotion, with effect from the date when Swaran Singh was

promoted, the said benefit of promotion to the post of Company

APURVA

2022.05.24 15:10

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this

order/judgmnt

CWP-17184-2016

-2-

Commander be also extended to the petitioner.

After notice of motion, the respondents have file the reply,

wherein it has been mentioned that the present petition is highly belated and

is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay itself as the petitioner retired

from service on 31.01.2002 and the present petition has come in the year

2016 and that too, on the issue of promotion, which was effected in the year

1986. As such, prayer of the respondents is that the present petition may

kindly be dismissed on the ground of delay itself.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone

through the record with their able assistance.

The petitioner is raising up a service dispute after a period of

thirty years and that too when the petitioner had retired fourteen years

before filing the present petition.

As per the judgment passed by this Court in the case of “Suraj

Mal Vs. State of Haryana”, 2015 (1) S.C.T. 31, no service dispute can be

adjudicated upon, especially after a period of nine years of the retirement.

The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are as under:

“

-

x

-

x

-

2.

Considering the fact that the writ petition has

been filed nearly 9 years after retirement claiming

certain benefits, the issue regarding which could be

raised when the petitioner was in service, the petition at

this stage deserves to be dismissed on account of delay

and laches only.

-

x

-

x

-

9.

In view of the above authoritative enunciation of

law by Hon'ble the Supreme Court and this Court, the

present writ petition filed by the petitioner nearly after

9 years of his retirement to claim certain benefits,

APURVA

2022.05.24 15:10

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this

order/judgmnt

CWP-17184-2016

-3-

which may be due to him while in service, certainly

deserves to be dismissed on account of delay and

laches as there is no satisfactory explanation available

for delay.”

In the present case, the petitioner has raised up a service

dispute of promotion viz-a-viz one of his juniors, after a period of thirty

years of the said promotion and fourteen years after his own retirement. At

this belated stage, the said claim of the petitioner cannot be considered.

With regard to the reliance being placed upon the decision of the co-

ordinate Bench of this Court passed in Wazir Chand's case (supra) by the

petitioner, the said Wazir Chand had filed the petition in the year 1998,

before his retirement, and therefore, the petit