IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-3132-2026 (O&M)

Date of decision: 04.02.2026 Jagdeep Singh ... Petitioner Vs.

State of Punjab and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Harshit Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Vikrampreet Arora, Advocate for respondent No.4.

*******

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. Present civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant 04 years’ and 09 years’ Assured Career Progression (ACP) increments, refix pay and revise pension of the petitioner accordingly and release all the consequential benefits along with interest. Further, it is prayed to direct the respondents to decide the legal notice dated 15.10.2025 (Annexure P-1) in a time bound manner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner joined respondent No.4-Municipal Council, Barnala as Octroi Clerk in the year 1989. He was promoted to the post of Junior Inspector on 01.01.1997 and further promoted as Sanitary Superintendent on 31.01.2025 and after putting 36 years of service, retired from the said post. Further, despite being eligible in the year 2007, the petitioner was not granted ACP increments on completion of 04 years and 09 years of service. As such, the petitioner, feeling aggrieved by the same, served a legal notice on 15.10.2025 (Annexure P-1), which remains unheeded.

3. Per contra, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent No.4, at the outset, submit that the petitioner, under the garb of present petition, is seeking refixation of his pay post-retirement. Admittedly, right of the petitioner for grant of ACP increments crystalized and accrued in the year 2007. The petitioner remained indolent for more than 18 years and for the first time, he agitated the said claim by serving a legal notice on 15.10.2025. As such, claim made by the petitioner suffers from the vices of delay and laches.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case file with their able assistance.

5. It is conceded by learned counsel for the petitioner that claim of the petitioner arose in the year 2007 and he served a legal notice only on 15.10.2025. However, he could not provide any satisfactory reason to justify the delay in approaching this Court.

6. It is trite law that the delay in approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be condoned, if sufficient cause is indicated or a reasonable explanation is provided for the same. However, facts of the matter at hand indicate otherwise. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to specify any compelling or extenuating circumstance, which prevented him/her from approaching this Court for such a long time. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by a three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chairman/Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Limited and others Vs. Ram Gopal, (2021) 13 SCC 225, wherein the following was held:

“16. Whilst it is true that limitation does not strictly apply to proceedings under Articles 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India , nevertheless, such rights cannot be enforced after an unreasonable lapse of time. Consideration of unexplained delays and inordinate laches would always be relevant in writ actions, and writ courts naturally ought to be reluctant in exercising their discretionary jurisdiction to protect those who have slept over wrongs and allowed illegalities to fester. Fence- sitters cannot be allowed to barge into Courts and cry for their rights at their convenience, and vigilant citizens ought not to be treated alike with mere opportunists. On multiple occasions, it has been restated that there are implicit limitations of time within which writ remedies can be enforced. In SS Balu v. State of Kerala, this Court observed th