IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-25929-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: 02.09.2025 Omvati ....Petitioner Versus Managing Director, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Sandeep Thakan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sukhdeep Singh Parmar, Advocate for the respondents.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)

1. Prayer in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to refix the pension of the petitioner by granting the husband of the petitioner annual increment in his last year of retirement as he, in his last retiring year and before his retirement, has completed requisite one year of service as required by the Revised Pay Rules, 2008 dated 30.12.2008 (Annexure P-1), for grant of annual increment with all consequential benefits of arrears, etc., along with interest. CONTENTIONS

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s husband has put in more than 20 years of service and in terms of Rule 10 of Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 (in short ‘H.C.S. (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008’) the deceased husband of the petitioner was entitled for annual increments on completion of service of one year as discernible from the Notification dated 30.12.2008 (Annexure P-1), however, the annual increments of the deceased husband of the petitioner has not been granted. The husband of the petitioner prior to his death had made several representations, however, all these representations remained unheeded. The petitioner has served a legal notice on 01.04.2025, upon the respondents claiming relief in terms of Rule 10 of H.C.S. (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 and the State being the model employer should have extended the benefit in terms of the applicable Rules and the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.K. Mastan Bee vs The General Manager, South Central Railway, 2003(1) SCC 184 and Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs State of Haryana, 1994(3) SCT 174

3. Notice of motion.

4. Mr. Sukhdeep Singh Parmar, Advocate, on advance notice, has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents/Corporation and submits that the husband of the petitioner had retired on 31.07.2008, on attaining the age of superannuation and he unfortunately expired on 19.07.2009. The petitioner is getting family pension on account of the death of her husband. The claim of the petitioner for refixation of pension of her deceased husband cannot be considered after 17 years as the claim made by the petitioner suffers from delay and laches and merely by filing representations, the claim of the petitioner cannot be revived again.

OBSERVATION & ANALYSIS

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. The claim of the petitioner admittedly arose in the year 2009. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to offer any plausible or satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay of more than 17 years in approaching this Court. In the absence of any justification for such delay, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches alone.

6. 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 her 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 tha