IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

145 CWP-5455-2025 Date of Decision: 27.02.2025 AMIT KUMAR …..Pe**oner Vs.

THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Himmat Singh, Advocate for the pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner.

Mr. Rajesh Sehgal, Addl. AG, Punjab for respondent No.1 ******

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

By way of this pe(cid:26)(cid:26)on filed under Ar(cid:26)cle 226 of the Cons(cid:26)tu(cid:26)on of India, pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner prays for issuance of appropriate writ to quash condi(cid:26)on No.3 (b) of the joining le0er dated 03.06.2015 (Annexure P-2) to the effect that pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner shall not en(cid:26)tled to any benefits including pension, gratuity, leave encashment etc. Further prayer is made to direct the respondent to re-calculate the salary of the pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner in terms of joining le0er dated 03.06.2015 for the period from July 2017 to December

2019 and release the arrears etc.

2. Pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner joined the office of respondent No.2 on the post of Company Secretary on contractual basis on lump sum salary of ₹30,000/- per month with a provision of increase of 10% every year. The contract was for period of 05 years, as is evident from the appointment le0er dated 03.06.2015 (Annexure P-2). Condi(cid:26)on No.3(b) of the appointment le0er reads as under:-

“Appointment made on contract basis will not be pensionable, will not be en(cid:26)tled for any kind of benefit like pension, gratuity, leave encashment etc.”

3. AAer expiry of the contract period, it was extended for another year on 26.08.2021 vide Annexure P-4 and thereaAer, pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner submi0ed his resigna(cid:26)on. He was relieved from the du(cid:26)es of Company Secretary from

30.05.2022 as per Annexure P-5.

4. Pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner has now challenged the condi(cid:26)on No.3(b) of the joining le0er dated 03.06.2015 (Annexure P-2) as reproduced earlier, as arbitrary, uncons(cid:26)tu(cid:26)onal and discriminatory. It is contended that pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner is en(cid:26)tled for all the service benefits including leave encashment, gratuity etc.

5. On advance no(cid:26)ce, Mr. Rajesh Sehgal, Addi(cid:26)onal AG, Punjab has appeared on behalf of respondent-State.

6. As rightly pointed out by Addi(cid:26)onal AG, Punjab for respondent- State, the pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner joined the Company Secretary pursuant to the appointment le0er dated 03.06.2015 (Annexure P-2). He con(cid:26)nued to serve the respondent (cid:26)ll 2022. During this en(cid:26)re period, he never challenged any condi(cid:26)on of his appointment le0er. Even aAer his resigna(cid:26)on, effec(cid:26)ve from 30.05.2022, he has approached this Court by way of present pe(cid:26)(cid:26)on in February 2025 i.e. aAer much delay and latches.

7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, when pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner never challenged condi(cid:26)on of the appointment le0er issued way back in 2015 and has approached this Court almost aAer 03 years from the date of his resigna(cid:26)on, this Court does not find any ground so as to issue any writ in favour of the pe(cid:26)(cid:26)oner as sought by him.

8. In P.S. Sadasivaswamy vs The State Of Tamil Nadu AIR 1974 SC 2271, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:

“A person aggrieved by an order of promo(cid:26)ng a junior over his bead should approach the Court at least within six months or at the most a year of such promo(cid:26)on. It is not that 'here is any period of limita(cid:26)on for the Courts to exercise their powers under Ar(cid:26)cle 226 nor is it that there can never be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in a ma0er aAer the passage of a certain length of (cid:26)me. But it would be a sound and wise exercise of discre(cid:26)on for the Courts to refuse to exercise their extraordinary powers under Ar(cid:26)cle 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expedi(cid:26)ously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the Court to put for