IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA-159-2026 (O&M)

Date of decision : 22.01.2026 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ..Appellants Vs.

KARNAIL SINGH ..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Present: Mr. A.S. Khara, Sr. DAG, Punjab for the appellants.

***

DEEPAK MANCHANDA , J .

CM-474-LPA-2026 The present application seeks condonation of delay of 339 days in filing the appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the matter remained under consideration at various official levels to determine whether the case was fit for filing an appeal, which resulted in the delay.

Heard.

The application for condonation of delay is vague and lacking in material particulars. No proper or sufficient explanation has been furnished to justify such an inordinate delay.

Consequently, no sufficient cause is made out for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. However, having heard learned counsel for the appellants at some length, we deem it appropriate to consider the merits of the appeal as well.

Main Case Through the present intra-court appeal, the appellants have assailed the impugned judgment dated 13.01.2025, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent was allowed, holding the matter to be squarely covered by the judgment rendered in LPA-1996-2016 titled Balbir Singh (since deceased) through LRs versus Bhakra Beas Management Board & others.

2. The brief facts, as emerging from the pleadings, are that the respondent had earlier filed a writ petition seeking quashing of order dated 22.06.2015 (Annexure P-8), whereby his claim for counting work-charge service towards qualifying service for pension was rejected. The respondent further sought a direction to count his work-charge service rendered from 01.03.1978 to 16.07.1990 for pensionary benefits. As the respondent was initially engaged as a work-charge employee and was subsequently appointed as a regular employee in the appellants’ department.

3. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by placing reliance upon the judgment rendered in the case of Balbir Singh (since deceased) through LRs (supra) observing that similar benefits had already been extended in earlier matters and that the State had failed to controvert the factual position, demonstrate any distinguishing features, or cite any contrary statutory provision or binding precedent. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant-

State has preferred the present intra-court appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Single Judge has mechanically applied the judgment without examining the material differences in the respondent’s service record. It is contended that the respondent had voluntarily resigned from his earlier organization and was appointed afresh in the appellant-department, resulting in forfeiture of past service. It is further submitted that prescribed mandatory conditions for counting past service, has been ignored, though none of its requirements are fulfilled. Hence, the impugned judgment suffers from misappreciation of facts and law and deserves to be set aside.

5. Heard.

6. The relevant findings recorded by the learned Single Judge are given hereinbelow:

“2. This Court vide order dated 19.12.2022 had adjourned the matter sine die and to be listed after decision of LPA-1996-2016 titled as Balbir Singh (since deceased) thr. his LRs vs. Bhakra Beas Management Board and others, stands decided vide judgment dated 18.09.2024, which learned State counsel despite his best efforts, has not been able to controvert the factual position and draw out any distinctive aspects in the aforementioned judgment or cite any contrary law xxxx xxxx”

7. A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition relying upon the judgment in Balbir Singh (since deceased) through LRs (supra) being a covered matter observing that the learned State counsel was unable to controvert the factual position,