218 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 23.09.2025 Jarnail Singh and others ....Petitioners Versus Pepsu Road Transport Corporation ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate for the respondent.

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 speaking order dated 20.11.2020 (Annexure P-5) passed by the respondent-Corporation.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that the petitioners served the respondent-Corporation and they retired in the year 2007, 2008 & 2009, whereas, petitioners No.9 to 11 retired in the year 2011. He further submits that the similarly circumstanced employees have approached this Court by filing CWP No.19084 of 2009 titled as ‘Malkit Singh and another Vs. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and another’ which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 03.03.2011 to the extent of granting the retiral benefits to the petitioners. However, keeping in view the financial constraints of the respondent-Corporation, the award of interest to the petitioners therein was kept in abeyance. Thereafter, the issue with regard to payment of interest on the commuted pension was decided by this Court in CWP No.7386 of 2016 titled as ‘Harmeet Kaur Vs. PRTC’ which was allowed vide order dated 23.04.2018 and this Court granted the interest @ 9% per annum on the commuted pension and directed the respondents therein to release the sanctioned commuted value of pension along with @ 9% interest. Further, similarly situated employee filed a Civil Suit bearing No. 647 of 03.12.2011 which was decreed on 28.02.2014 and an interest of 12% was awarded. The respondent-Corporation took a policy decision implemented the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2014 (Annexure P- 9). As such, the case of the petitioners is at a similar footing and they are also entitled to the interest as awarded by this Court in Harmeet Kaur’s case (supra).

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation submits that the claim of the petitioners is hopelessly barred by the principle of delay and laches. The petitioners are a fence sitter who remained indolent for more than ten years and filed the present writ petition only in the year 2021. Further, the petitioners were only entitled to 60% of the commuted value of pension, whereas, the petitioners were paid 100% of pension. The petitioners have also enjoyed the fruits of 40% of excess amount of pension otherwise the 40% of the commuted pension would be paid to the petitioners in 15 years.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, it transpires that the petitioners had retired from the respondent- Corporation in the year 2007 to 2011 and they have been paid the commuted value of pension during the period 2009 to 2014, whereas, for the first time, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of filing CWP No.2864 of 2019 titled as ‘Jarnail Singh and others Vs. PRTC’, as such, the petitioners are barred by the principle of delay and laches.

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 petitioners 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 following was held:

“16. Whilst it is true that limitation