115 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-20534-2025 Date of decision: 28.08.2025 Harmesh Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Pankaj Mohan Kansal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the benefit of increments that was granted in the year 1997 w.e.f. 1992 in implementation of recommendation of Third Punjab Pay Commission along with all consequential benefits as has been granted to many others pursuant to Judicial Pronouncement dated

15.11.1992 passed in CWP No.15523 of 1990.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner is entitled to two increments on the promotion to Technician Grade IV in the year 1992 as per the 3^rd Pay Commission and Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988. The petitioner has prayed for all consequential benefits (arrears, revised pension etc.) in accordance with the pay fixation with interest. This benefit was initially denied to same set of employees, however, this Court in the year 1992 and 1996 has confirmed the two increments on all promotions from 1986 onwards. Thereafter, the respondent has withdrawn this benefit in the year 2006 by passing an office order by abolishing the post to which they were promoted. The aforementioned order of withdrawal was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the year 2012 and ultimately the relief was granted to the affected employees who were entitled to notional pay and increments. The petitioner has now retired in the year 2020 and submits that he served a legal notice on 15.04.2025, however, the claim of the petitioner was not considered. He further relies upon the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No.17190 of 1997 titled as ‘Ram Chand Chann Vs. State of Punjab and another’ decided on 09.07.2024.

3. The learned State counsel submits that the claim of the petitioner cannot be considered after an inordinate delay and the petition suffers from delay and laches. Further, the petitioner cannot be entitled to any relief as he has retired in the year 2020 and the present case is not covered under the principle of recurring cause of action.

4. 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 2 26 of the Constitution of India, nevertheless, such rights cannot be enforced after an unreasonable lapse of time. Consideration of unexplained delays and inordinate laches would always be relevant in writ actions, and writ courts naturally ought to be reluctant in exercising their discretionary jurisdiction to protect those who have slept over wrongs and allowed illegalities to fester. Fence- sitters cannot be allowed to barge into Courts and cry for their rights at their convenience, and vigilant citizens ought not to be treated alike with mere opportunists. On multiple occasions, it has been restated that there are implicit limitations of time within which writ remedies can be enforced. In SS Balu v. State of Kerala this Court observed thus:

“17. It is also we