IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 11.11.2025 SHOBHA KOSER ...... Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA ***

Present :- Mr. Amit Parashar, Advocate for the petitioner.

***

Deepinder Singh Nalwa, J. (Oral)

1. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.03.2025 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent No.2 whereby, the claim of the petitioner for grant of regular pay scale of the post of Principal has been rejected. It is also prayed by the petitioner to refix/revise the pension of the petitioner taking into consideration the pay of the post of Principal along with all consequential benefits.

2. The case of the petitioner is that she was working on the post Associate Professor in the Department of Education. She was given current duty charge of the post of Principal on 05.05.2000. Thereafter, she retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2000. It is the case of the petitioner in the petition that she is entitled to grant of pay of the post of Principal as she has discharged all the duties that were being discharged by a regular Principal on account of given current duty charge from 05.05.2000 to

31.07.2000.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that it has come to the knowledge of the petitioner that similarly situated employees, who were given current duty charge while working on the post of Principal, have been granted the benefit of regular pay of the post of Principal. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition claiming the similar relief.

5. Reliance has been made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Union of India and another Vs. Tarsem Singh, 2008(8) SCC 648

6. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the facts of the case, a perusal of the facts would show that the petitioner is claiming pay of the post of Principal for the period when she was given current duty charge of the post of Principal from 05.05.2000 to 31.07.2000. The present writ petition has been filed after an inordinate delay of almost 25 years. No valid reason has been given for filing the present writ petition after such an inordinate delay.

7. It is well-settled law that where there is an inordinate delay in filing the writ petition, the writ petition should not ordinarily be entertained. A perusal of the facts of the present case would show that no explanation has been given by the petitioner in knocking the doors of this Court after such an inordinate delay.

8. In State of M.P. and others vs. Nandlal Jaiswal and others, (1986) 4 SCC 566, the Supreme Court has held that the power of the High Court to issue an appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary and that the High Court in the exercise of its discretionary power would not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic. If there was inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in filing of the writ petition and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The relevant extract of the judgment in Nandlal Jaiswal's case (surpa) reads as under:-

“24. Now, it is well settled that the power of the High Court to issue an appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and the High Court in the exercise of its discretion does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic. If there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in filing a writ petition and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The evolution of this rule of laches or delay is premised upon a number of factors. The High Court d