119 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

LPA-3506-2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision:26.02.2026 JAI PARKASH ....APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….RESPONDENT(S)

LPA-3781-2025 (O&M)

SHARMA JI GOYAT THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS ....APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….RESPONDENT(S)

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR Present: Mr. Sandeep Thakan, Advocate for the appellant(s) (in both appeals).

Mr. Pankaj Middha, Addl., AG, Haryana.

****

ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. (Oral)

1. Since the controversy involved in these appeals is identical, they are being dealt with together by this common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from LPA-3506-2025.

2. The appellants are aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition vide order dated 17.09.2025 passed in CWP No.13951 of 2021 and another connected case. The petition(s) have been dismissed primarily on the ground of unexplained laches/delay.

3. The undisputed facts of the case(s) are that the appellants retired on 31.01.2007. Nearly 15 years thereafter, they approached the Writ Court claiming promotion, pay fixation, and pensionary benefits, etc. The basis of the claim is an earlier order passed in the case of Mithan Lal Gupta vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP-21603-2016, decided on 09.01.2019. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment of this Court in CWP-9342-1988 titled Jagdish Singh vs. Haryana State Electricity Board and others, decided on 10.09.1992.

4. Vide judgment delivered in the year 1992 in the case of Jagdish Singh (supra), it was held that the seniority list of Upper Division Clerks (UDCs) be revised, and it was directed that recruited UDCs who failed to qualify the departmental examination within two years or five successive chances should be placed below those UDCs who had already qualified the examination for promotion. The learned Single Judge has noticed these facts in paragraph No.3, which is reproduced below:-

“3. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) inter alia contends that petitioner joined the services of Haryana State Electricity Board and retired on 31.01.2007 after service of more than three decades. The petitioner is claiming promotion, pay fixation and pensionary benefits at par with his junior namely Sh. Maha Singh, in terms of the judgment passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP-21603- 2016, titled as Mithan Lal Gupta Vs. State of Haryana and others, decided on 09.01.2019 (Annexure P-12). Further, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in CWP-9342-1988, titled as Jagdish Singh Vs. Haryana State Electricity Board and others decided on 10.09.1992 (Annexure P-1), wherein it has been held that seniority list of Upper Division Clerks (UDC) be revised and directed that recruited UDCs, who failed to qualify departmental examination within two years of five successive chances, should be placed below the UDCs who had already qualified the examination for the promotion. Thereafter, the respondent wrote certain letters on 24.10.2006 and 23.02.2007 for revising the seniority of UDCs. Further, Sh. Maha Singh, who was similarly situated to the petitioner was working in DHBVNL and had filed civil suit before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurgaon, for granting him benefit of seniority and arrears of pay at par with junior Sh.Ram Nath Singh. The civil suit was decreed vide judgment dated 14.05.2012. Pursuant thereto, the First Appeal filed against the judgment dated 14.05.2012 by respondent(s) stands dismissed vide judgment dated 26.07.2013(Annexure P-3). The regular second appeal was also filed against the judgment dated 26.07.2013 (supra) which was also dismissed by this Court on 06.05.2014 (Annexure P-4). Thereafter the Special Leave Petition was also filed by respondent against the judgment passed by this Court on 06.05.2014 before the Apex Court, which also stands dismissed (Annexure P-5). As such, petitioner is