118 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 22.09.2025 Vinod Kumar Mahajan ....Petitioner Versus Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Ms. Kiran Bala Jain, Advocate and Ms. Anjali Rani, Advocate for the petitioner.

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

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 quashing the impugned order dated 09.01.2025 (Annexure P-6) passed by the respondents.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer in the year 1971 and he was promoted to Junior Engineer-I on 29.01.1997 and later on, as Assistant Engineer on 03.08.2005 and subsequently retired on 30.04.2007. The petitioner is placed at Serial No.197, whereas, his junior, namely, O.P. Gandhi is placed at Serial No.209 of the seniority list who is drawing a higher pay than the petitioner as discernible from the memo/letter dated 02.12.2016 (Annexure P-2). The petitioner is entitled to re-fixation of his pay to be at par with his junior. The petitioner approached this Court on 24.04.2017 and his case was initially rejected on 24.04.2017 and he challenged the same by way of filing of CWP No.20098 of 2017 and this Court set aside the order passed by the competent authority and directed the respondents to pass a fresh speaking order. The petitioner filed COCP No.302 of 2025 due to non-compliance of the directions issued by this Court in CWP No.20098 of 2017. Respondent No.3 passed the impugned speaking order on 09.01.2025 (Annexure P-6) rejecting the claim of the petitioner for stepping-up his pay at par with his junior, namely, Om Prakash Gandhi. She further submits that there is no denial to the fact that the petitioner is senior to the aforementioned Mr. O.P. Gandhi, as such, he is entitled to the claim made by him. The anomaly is due to a mistake made by the Finance Department. She has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Union of India and others Vs. Shri. C.R. Madhava Murthy and another’ 2022 AIR (Supreme Court) 1701.

3. On the other hand, Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Additional A.G., Haryana puts in appearance on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 and submits that the claim of the petitioner is barred by delay and laches. Admittedly, the petitioner retired on 30.04.2007 and he remained silent for ten years, agitating the issue of stepping-up of his pay only in the year 2017 which was rejected on 24.04.2017. Thereafter, this Court directed the respondents to pass a speaking order in the year 2017. The cause of action is barred by the principle of delay and laches as only in the year 2025 for another eight years, the petitioner remained indolent.

Further, the case of the petitioner has been thoroughly examined in terms of Government of Haryana instructions dated 02.06.2008 regarding stepping-up of pay which is permissible only if the senior officer was drawing equal or more pay than the junior at the time of promotion. This instruction was applicable on those employees who are promoted from Group D & C and for those who were recruited directly in Group C. On careful examination of pay scales of petitioner and his junior, it was found that Mr. O.P. Gandhi was drawing higher pay than the petitioner as on 01.05.2005 prior to petitioner’s promotion as AE on 03.08.2005. Further, Mr. O.P. Gandhi’s subsequent higher pay after 01.01.2006 was due to his entitlement to the 18 years’ time scale, a personal benefit that is not subject to adjustment under the pay anomaly rules.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case with their able assistance.

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 indica