IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

132 CWP-10704-2026 Date of Decision: 08.04.2026 Desh Raj .....Petitioner VERSUS Managing Director, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. Sandeep Thakan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Advocate for the respondents.

****

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral)

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance of an appropriate writ or order in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the impugned order dated 23.12.2025 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent No.3 and directing the respondents to set up the pay of the petitioner at par to Sh. Lakhan Singh, Junior to the petitioner in view of the judgment dated 19.11.2025 (Annexure P-6) and release all the consequential benefits accrued in favour of petitioner.

PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner initially joined the respondent-department as a Bill Distributor on 30.09.1981 and was subsequently promoted as Lower Division Clerk (LDC) on 18.09.1987. Thereafter, upon qualifying the departmental accounts examination, he earned further promotion as Upper Division Clerk (UDC) on 29.07.1993 and ultimately retired from service as a Superintendent on 31.01.2016. It is contended that as per the seniority list of UDCs issued by the Chief Engineer, DHBVNL, dated 02.08.2001, the petitioner was placed at Sr. No. 471, whereas one Sh. Lakhan Singh, admittedly junior to the petitioner, was placed at Sr. No. 486, having been promoted as UDC on 22.09.1994. Further reliance is placed upon the seniority list of Head Clerk/Deputy Superintendent dated 11.07.2013, wherein the petitioner figures at Sr. No. 141, whereas the said junior is placed at Sr. No. 146 (Annexure P-1), thereby reaffirming the petitioner’s seniority. It is further contended that despite being senior, the petitioner was not granted pay parity with his junior, who retired as Superintendent on 31.07.2017. The petitioner submitted representations dated 10.12.2024 (Annexure P-2) and 16.06.2025 (Annexure P-3) seeking stepping up of his pay and removal of anomaly; however, the said claim was rejected vide letter dated 23.12.2025 (Annexure P-5). In support of his claim, reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by this Court in Ranjit Singh Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others, CWP-10263-2014, decided on 19.11.2025 (Annexure P-6).

RESPONDENTS’ CONTENTION

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner admittedly retired from service on 31.01.2016 and, as per his own pleadings, raised the grievance for the first time by way of representations dated 10.12.2024 and 16.06.2025 (Annexures P-2 and P-3), i.e., after an inordinate delay of more than eight years from the date of retirement. It is contended that no cause of action survives to the petitioner after such a prolonged lapse of time and the filing of belated representations cannot revive a stale or dead claim. It is further submitted that the writ petition suffers from gross delay and laches, which has neither been explained nor justified in the pleadings, and on this ground alone, the petition deserves outright dismissal.

OBSERVATIONS AND ANALYSIS

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the petitioner retired from service on 31.01.2016 and has approached this Court only after issuance of representations in the years 2024 and 2025. There is no cogent explanation forthcoming as to why the petitioner remained silent for such a long period. It is a settled proposition of law that stale claims cannot be agitated under writ jurisdiction, particularly when the same are sought to be revived merely by way of belated representations.

5. Even otherwise, the claim of stepping up of pay is essentially a servi