126 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 11.09.2025 Balwinder Singh ....Petitioner Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Rimple Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. H.N. Sahu, Advocate for the respondents-PSPCL.

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 certiorari for setting aside the impugned order dated 17.12.2021 (Annexure P-

4) passed by respondent No.2.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner was appointed as a work charge employee in November, 1968. Thereafter, his services were regularized and he also earned promotions to the post of Assistant Lineman and Lineman. The petitioner retired on 31.08.2005. The respondents have only granted pension for his regular service period, however, for counting the pensionary benefits, the service rendered by the petitioner as work charge employe has not been counted. Thereafter, the Government of Punjab issued instructions dated 18.04.2016 by giving a special one time opportunity for counting work charge/daily wages service for the purspoe of pension. The petitioner sent a representation on 04.09.2021 (Annexure P-1) which remains unheeded, thereafter, he approached this Court by way of filing of CWP No.22840 of 2021 (Annexure P-2) and this Court has directed the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass a speaking order. The respondents rejected the claim of the petitioner on

17.12.2021 (Annexure P-4).

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the right of the petitioner has crystallised way back in the year 2005 when he retired on 31.08.2005. He kept sitting over his rights and only woken up in the year 2021. Even he has not taken benefit of the one time measure granted by the Government of Punjab vide its instructions dated 18.04 2016. Further, the rejection of his claim on 17.012.2021 (Annexure P-4), his challenge before this Court after a gap of four years deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches since merely by filing representation or a decision on the legal notice will not rekindle his claim which accrued to him in the year 2005.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that the claim of the petitioner arose in the year 2005. However, he could not provide any satisfactory reason to justify the delay in approaching this Court.

5. 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 226 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 implici