IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on: 31.01.2026 Ram Richh Paul Kakar .........Appellant Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Present: Mr. Karan Singla, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Akhil Kamra, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.

* * * * *

DEEPAK MANCHANDA, J.

Through this intra-Court appeal, the appellant has challenged the impugned judgment dated 08.01.2026 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground of delay and laches.

2. The facts emanating from the pleadings of the present case are that the appellant is a retired Punjab Forest Service Officer who joined ser- vice as Forest Ranger and was granted adhoc promotion to PFS Class-II on 29.05.2000. Despite being senior in cadre, his junior was confirmed from the date of adhoc promotions, whereas the appellant was confirmed only w.e.f. 01.09.2002, resulting in seniority, pay and promotional anomaly. Sub- sequently, Assured Career Progression (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ACP’)

benefits were granted based on the later confirmation date, leading to finan- cial loss to the appellant. Representations were submitted by the appellant but the authority passed the impugned order dated 05.12.2023 thereby main- taining the anomaly. The appellant further preferred a writ petition whereby vide impugned judgment dated 08.01.2026, the Court held that the petition suffered from gross delay and laches, noting that the petitioner had ap- proached the Court after his retirement and long after the original cause of action arose. It was observed that repeated representations do not revive a stale cause of action and writ jurisdiction being discretionary can be de- clined in cases of unexplained delay. Being aggrieved from the impugned judgment, this present intra-Court appeal has been preferred by the appel-

lant.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned Single Judge failed to consider the fresh cause of action which itself was cre- ated on 05.12.2023 (Annexure P-10) whereby the claim of the appellant was rejected. He also submits that the writ petition has been dismissed without examining the legality of the impugned order as there is a recurring cause of action per se wrong pay fixation, denial of ACP and pension loss. He also submits that the learned Single Judge wrongly calculated the delay and dis-

missed the writ petition on delay and laches.

4. Heard.

5. The relevant extract of the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge are reproduced hereinbelow:-

6. The grievance of the petitioner is that the services of the petitioner was required to be confirmed w.e.f. 29.05.2000 i.e. the date of his ad hoc pro- motion instead of 01.09.2002 and consequently, benefit of ACP scheme was required to be extended to the petitioner by considering the date of his confirmation in service as 29.05.2000 instead of 01.09.2002. The peti- tioner stood retired from service, on attaining the age of superannuation on 28.02.2015 and he has approached this Court on 22.12.2025 i.e. after a lapse of period of more than 10 years. Even the impugned order, whereby the benefit of ACP was given to the petitioner by taking the date of his con- firmation in service as 01.09.2002, was passed on 05.12.2023 (Annexure P-10) and from the said date also period of more than two years has been elapsed. In nutshell, the petitioner is claiming the relief of confirmation w.e.f. 29.05.2000 instead of 01.09.2002 after a period of more than 23 years. Since there is undue and unexplained delay in approaching this Court, therefore, the instant petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

6. We have perused the impugned judgment, the same would shows that a well reasoned judgment has been passed by the learned Single Judge relying upon the several judicial precedents passed by the Hon’ble Su- preme Court.