IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-28513-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: 23.09.2025 Bikker Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Ms. Meenu, Advocate for the petitioner (through video conferencing)

Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab for respondents No.1 and 2.

Ms. Deepika Bagri, Advocate for respondents No.3 and 4.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)

1. Prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to count the qualifying service of the petitioners for grant of pensionary benefits w.e.f. date of joining the Corporation instead of date when they started contributing towards Provident Fund (CPF) for the first time. It is further prayed that the petitioner be held entitled to the revision of pension and also the arrears along with interest from the date the same was due.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Conductor on ad hoc basis on 30.03.1982 with PEPSU Road Transport Corporation, Barnala Depot, and his services were regularized w.e.f. 30.03.1982 vide order dated 07.12.1990. After serving the respondent/Corporation, the petitioner retired on 31.07.2012. However, the sanctioning authority calculated his qualifying service from 01.07.1982 instead of 30.03.1982 and fixed his pension based on last pay drawn of Rs.11,530/- (50% of the basic pay), which is lower than the Clerks and even his juniors. Due to stagnation, the petitioner received no promotions during his 30 years of service. The petitioner is entitled to a pay scale of Rs.10,300-34,800 + Grade Pay Rs.3,200/- with an initial pay of Rs.13,500/- w.e.f. 01.12.2011, along with re-fixation of pay and revision of pension from 01.08.2012. He has faced financial loss since 01.12.2011 due to a pay anomaly. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner served a legal notice on 24.06.2024, which was replied to by the respondents on 06.08.2024, denying his claim. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment Ved Parkash vs State of Punjab and others passed in CWP No.8285 of 2004, decided on 16.09.2010, and submits that the petitioner is entitled to the pensionary benefits from the date of joining the service.

3. Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4, appearing on advance notice, submits that the case of the petitioner is hit by the principles of delay and laches. The right of the petitioner crystallized in the year 2012, when his Pension Payment Order was prepared, however, he kept mum for 12 years and no reasons has been provided for the said inordinate delay.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record 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 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 p