A stale claim based on service-related pay fixation, raised after an inordinate delay of several decades, cannot be revived through repetitive representations and is barred by the principles of delay and laches, thus disentitling the petitioner to discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.

****

NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to rectify the mistake made by the then District Education Officer, Higher Education, Hoshiarpur in the service book of the petitioner due to which the petitioner has got less salary and consequently, after her retirement, she is getting less pension. Further, to release the correct salary of the petitioner w.e.f. 20.02.1996 and correct amount of pension w.e.f. 30.04.2011 i.e. the date of retirement of the petitioner, along with interest @ 12% per annum.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Social Studies Mistress, vide order dated 05.11.1974. During her service tenure, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Head Mistress on 01.09.1984; Deputy District Education Officer in the year 1996; Principal Government Senior Secondary School, Baghpur, District Hoshiarpur in the year 1999; Officer on Special Duty, Department of Education, Punjab (Scholarship Branch) in the year 2006; Deputy Director, Primary in the year 2008-09 and retired as such, on attaining the age of superannuation, on 30.04.2011. He further submits that at the time of promotion of the petitioner to the post of Head Mistress on 01.09.1984, her pay was wrongly fixed. He further submits that during her service as well as after her retirement, the petitioner made several representations to the respondents seeking correction/revision of her salary w.e.f. 01.09.1984 and grant of all consequential benefits, including revised pension. However, no action has been taken by the respondents till date.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the relevant documents.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that at the time of her promotion to the post of Head Mistress on 01.09.1984, her pay was wrongly fixed by the respondent-department and during her service as well as after her retirement, she made several representations to the respondents seeking correction/revision of her salary w.e.f. 01.09.1984 and to grant her all consequential benefits, including revised pension but to no avail and representation dated 19.04.2021 has been annexed as Annexure P-7.

5. The petitioner is seeking revision of her salary w.e.f. 01.09.1984, however, she has approached this Court in the year 2026 i.e. after a delay of more than 41 years. Since there is an undue and unexplained delay in approaching this Court, therefore, the instant petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Yunus (Baboobhai) A Hamid Padvekar Vs. State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary and others : 2009 (2) SCT 24, while referring to the issue of delay and laches, had held as follows:-

“8. Delay or laches is one of the factors which is to be borne in mind by the High Courts when they exercise their discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the ‘Constitution’). In an appropriate case the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite party. Even where fundamental right is involved the matter is still within the discretion of the Court as pointed out in Durga Prasad v. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports (AIR 1970 Supreme Court 769). Of course, the discret