115+119 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 15.09.2025 G. Ramesh Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents

2) CWP-27410-2025 Gurdev Singh and others ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Gauravjit Singh Patwalia, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. This common order shall dispose of the aforementioned civil writ petitions as they arise from a similar factual matrix. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from CWP-27351-2025.

2. The present civil writ petition(s) 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 revise the pay scale of the petitioner(s) w.e.f. 01.01.2006 in view of the recommendations of the 5^th Pay Commission and further to also pay the arrears to the petitioner(s).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) inter alia contends that the petitioner(s) was appointed as a Driver on 07.04.1979 in the respondent- Corporation and retired as a Vehicle Supervisor on 29.02.2008 as discernible from Annexure P-2. The Board of Directors and the respondent-Corporation vide resolution dated 07.11.2006 adopted the Punjab Government notification dated 01.06.2004. The petitioner(s)’ pay was fixed accordingly vide office order dated 26.12.2006 (Annexure P-4). The Government of Punjab further notified the Punjab Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009 on 27.05.2009 (Annexure P-9) and made it effective retrospectively with effect from 01.01.2006. Further, the Board of Directors of the respondent-Corporation in its meeting held on 30.08.2011 (Annexure P-10) approved the revision of pay scales in principle and referred the matter to the Finance Department. However, vide letter dated 21.01.2016, the Finance Department has expressed its inability to provide funds for the arrears of the revised pay. The petitioner filed CWP No.25396 of 2019 which was disposed of on 11.09.2019 (Annexure P-11) with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioners’ notice dated 23.04.2019 by passing a speaking order within a period of three months. In compliance thereof, he respondent-Corporation rejected the claim of the petitioner(s) by issuing impugned office order dated 17.07.2020. He placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Union of India and others Vs. Tarsem Singh’ 2008 SCC OnLine SC 1235.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner(s) and after perusing the record of the case, the claim of the petitioner(s) crystallised in the year 2016 and he submitted a notice on 11.09.2019 which was decided in terms of the directions issued by this Court in the aforementioned writ petition. The speaking order was passed on 17.07.2020. The petitioner remained indolent and kept sitting over his rights. The reliance of the petitioner(s) on Tarsem Singh’s case (supra) is totally misconceived. The respondent therein was declared invalidated from Army Service on 13.11.1983 and he approached the High Court in the year 1999 for the grant of disability pension. The facts are distinguishable as denial of pension cannot be equated with revision of pay scale in any manner.

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 them 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 follow