126 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 23.02.2026 Sarjivenjeet ....Petitioner Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Limited through its Managing Director and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Vishal Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Manan Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned letter dated 12.06.2025 (Annexure P-13). Further, for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release the benefit advance promotional increment scale after completion of 23 years service to the petitioner as given to similarly situated employees and revise the pension of the petitioner and release the arrears along with 18%

interest per annum.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner was appointed on 18.09.1986 as a Trademate and thereafter, he earned promotion to the post of Assistant Lineman and retired as Lineman on 30.09.2018. Under the time bound promotional scale scheme introduced on

23.04.1990, the employees were entitled to the benefits on completion of 9, 16 & 23 years of service. The petitioner was granted the 09 years benefit on 24.09.1996 and 16 year benefit on 15.12.2003 (Annexure P-2). On 26.08.2010, the petitioner completed 23 years of service as ALM and became eligible for the third benefit. The clarifications in this regard have been issued by the respondent-Corporation on 09.11.1999 (Annexure P-5) and 28.07.2000 (Annexure P-6) providing that the benefit would not be denied unless the employee was in a scale higher than the next promotional post. The petitioner was promoted to Lineman only in the year 2014 establishing that he was not in a higher scale in the year 2010. Further, similarly situated employees, namely, Kulwinder Pal Singh, Rajneesh Kumar and Inderdeep Singh were granted the 23 year benefit between 2018-2020. He further relies upon Annexure P-14 and submits that on 11.07.2019, the benefit of 23 years of time bound promotional scale was granted to the aforesaid identically circumstanced. The petitioner made multiple representations (Annexures P-8 to P-11) and also served a legal notice but his claim was rejected vide impugned letter dated 12.06.2025 (Annexure P-13).

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that admittedly, the claim of the petitioner was crystallized on 28.08.2010 and he retired on 30.09.2018 without agitating his right to the 23 years promotional scale scheme. He further submits that the petitioner reliance on Annexure P-14 is also of no consequence as those employees have been diligent in pursuing their remedies and they were granted the relief on 11.07.2019, whereas, the petitioner has made a representations followed by the legal notice which as served on 23.05.2025. As such, the claim raised by the petitioner is barred by the delay and laches.

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

5. 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, the facts of the matter at hand indicate otherwise. Learned counsel petitioner has failed to specify any compelling or extenuating circumstance which prevented him 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 th