103 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 12.09.2025 Suresh Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Ram Kumar Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Additional A.G., Haryana.

Mr. Prince Singh, Advocate for the respondents.

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 25.06.2025 (Annexure P-

6) passed by respondent No.3.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner initially joined the respondent-Department as T-Mate (Work Charge) on 23.01.1979. Thereafter, he was regularized and he was earned regular promotions. The petitioner was granted first ACP benefits on 01.06.2010 with effect form 01.01.2006. The petitioner retired on 31.03.2014 after rendering more than 33 years of service and he has been granted the benefit of ACP only once during his entire service between the year 2022-24. The petitioner made representations to the respondent-Corporation for seeking second and third ACP and promotional benefits citing the financial and seniority loss he has suffered. His claim was rejected by the respondent-Corporation on 25.06.2025 on the ground that new ACP scales came into force with effect from 01.04.2014, i.e. just one day after the retirement of the petitioner on 31.03.2014. Reliance in this regard has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘The Director (Admin. And HR) KPTCL and others Vs. C.P. Mundinamani and others’ 2023 AIR (Supreme Court) 1956 and submits that the issue with regard to the entitlement of an employee who had retired on 31.03.2014 one day prior to the issuance of the new pay scale on 01.04.2014 is well settled, as such, the petitioner is also entitled to the same relief.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the claim of the petitioner cannot be considered after a lapse of 11 years. The right if any, has crystallised to the petitioner in the year 2014 itself and admittedly, he has represented for the first time as per his own pleadings in the year 2022. Further, by filing representations, he cannot re-kindle his claim which is barred by delay and laches.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that the claim of the petitioner arose in the year 2014. 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

6. Further, in Mrinmoy Maity vs. Chhanda Koley and others 2024 AIR SC 2717, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically observed that the High Courts must factor in the delay, while exercising its discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was further opined that undue and unexplained delay may be reason enough to dismiss a petition as indolent litigants ought not to be encouraged by writ Courts.

7. In State of Uttaranchal v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari, (2013) 12 SCC 179, while considering the issue regarding delay and laches and referring to earlier judgments on the issue, a Two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that repeated representations made will not keep the issues alive. A stale or a dead issue/dispute cannot be got revived even if such a representation has either been decided by the authority or got decided by getting a direction from the court as the issue regarding d