122 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 11.05.2026 Rakesh Kumar Singla ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Tushaar Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amit Shukla, DAG, Punjab. Ms. Monika Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2-PWRMDC.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the reply dated 06.04.2026 (Annexure P-6). Further, for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the revised pay to the petitioner from the actual completion of four years w.e.f. 06.03.2002 and 09 years w.e.f. 06.03.2007 and as per ACP Rules, 1998 and accordingly, revise the retiral benefits of the petitioner with all consequential benefits and the entire arrears be released with 9% interest.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner was appointed as Sectional Officer on 30.06.1980. He was promoted as Sub Divisional Engineer on 06.03.1998 and thereafter as Divisional Engineer on 30.06.2015. The petitioner retired from service on 31.08.2018. The respondents introduced the ACP Scheme under the Punjab Civil Services Rules (Revised Pay) Rules, 1998 vide instructions dated 17.04.2000. The petitioner was granted ACP benefit on completion of 04 years w.e.f. 01.01.2003 instead of 06.03.2002, and the benefit of 09 years ACP was granted w.e.f. 01.01.2008 instead of 06.03.2007. He further submits that the issue as to whether ACP benefits are to be extended from the due date or from 1^st January of the following year was considered by this Court in CWP No.5956 of 2015 titled as Manjit Singh Bahra Vs. The Principal Secretary, Department of Irrigation, Punjab and others decided on 10.01.2017. Therefore, once the question of law governing the applicability of the Revised Pay Rules, 1998 has already been settled by this Court, the benefit thereof is liable to be extended to all similarly situated employees.

2.2 Learned counsel for the petitioner further refers to Annexure P-4 and submits that similarly situated employees, namely, Jagdish Kumar Arya and Hari Krishan Garg, had also approached this Court by way of filing CWP No.22417 of 2020 titled as Jagdish Kumar Arya and others Vs. State of Punjab and another and CWP No.22491 of 2020 titled as Hari Krishan Garg and others Vs. State of Punjab and another which were decided on 11.03.2025. The said judgments have been implemented on 19.09.2025 as discernible from Annexure P-5, as such, the petitioner is also entitled to the same relief. However, the petitioner’s representation dated 09.12.2025 (Annexure P-2) was declined on 06.04.2026 (Annexure P-6) solely on the ground that he was not a party in the connected writ petitions. The refusal to grant the benefits solely on the ground that the petitioner was not a party is arbitrary and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India, besides being contrary to the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Satbir Singh and others vs. State of Haryana and others, 2002 (2) SCT 354.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that the petitioner is a fence-sitter. Admittedly, the recommendations of the 4th Punjab Pay Commission concerning the Assured Career Progression Scheme were implemented in the year 2000. The petitioner was granted the benefit of 04 years’ ACP on 01.01.2003 and 09 years’ ACP on 01.01.2008. The petitioner retired on 31.08.2018 and remained indolent, therefore, he cannot be permitted to derive benefit from the favourable orders passed in Manjit Singh Bahra’s case (supra) wherein the writ petition had been filed in the year 2015. The claim raised by the petitioner suffers from the vice of delay and laches and recurring cause of action is available only till the petiti