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 impugned order dated 08.12.2020 (Annexure P-22) and impugned order dated 04.08.2025 (Annexure P-23) vide which the claim of grant of ACP to the petitioner has been declined. Further, for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the benefit of next ACP grade pay with reference to the grade pay of the promotional post, held by the petitioner from 31.10.1996 to 31.10.2006 without any financial upgradation, w.e.f. 31.10.2006 along with arrears, fixation of pay and pension/revised pension with interest and all other consequential benefits arising therefrom.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner was appointed as Accounts Officer in erstwhile Haryana State Electricity Board on 07.02.1985. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Accounts Officer on 08.06.1990. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Chief Accounts Officer and upon restructuring of the Electricity Board in the year 1998, the petitioner’s services were allocated to HPGCL. The petitioner remained stagnated on the post of Chief Accounts Officer until his superannuation on 28.02.2011. The petitioner was entitled to the next ACP grade pay upon completion of 10 years of regular satisfactory service on the promotion post w.e.f. 31.10.2006 under Rule 7(4) of ACP Rules. He further refers to Annexure P-1 and submits that perusal of the same clearly indicates that recommendation for grant of next ACP grade pay was made on 22.10.2014. The petitioner’s claim was kept pending on the pretext of some pending charge sheets. The petitioner made a representation on 15.02.2010 (Annexure P-9) before his retirement followed by reminders on 19.01.2011 and 16.02.2011. Even the financial advisor on 16.09.2014 rendered an opinion that the petitioner is eligible for ACP grade pay as discernible from Annexure P-10. The case of the petitioner was illegally rejected by the Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation on 05.06.2017 on the ground of delay and laches, whereas, it is a recurring cause of action and petitioner claim cannot be rejected on the ground of delay and laches. He further relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others Vs. Tarsem Singh 2008 (8) SCC 648 and also the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.1254 of 2009 titled as Balwant Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others decided on 02.08.2010. It is further contended that the junior of the petitioner, namely, Mr. K.K. Marwar was granted ACP benefit on 12.04.2010 (Annexure P-19) and Mr. D.C. Aggarwal, who was a senior granted ACP grade pay w.e.f. 01.01.2006 as discernible from Annexure P-20. The petitioner submitted a legal notice on 21.09.2020 which was rejected vide order dated 08.12.2020 (Annexure P-22). The petitioner again approached the respondents and vide the impugned order dated 04.08.2025, his claim was again rejected.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation refers to Annexure P-22 at Page No.84 of the paper book and submits that the petitioner had attained the age of superannuation on 28.02.2011, whereas, the post of Controller of Finance came into existence in the respondent-Corporation on 09.09.2014 i.e. after the retirement of the petitioner. By virtue of his promotion to the highest rank in the hierarchy, the petitioner was already drawing the highest salary in the grade pay and there was no further scale either under the ACP scales or in the hierarchy. As such, the claim of the petitioner is devoid of merit. Further, it is contended that the claim is hit by the principle of constructive res judicata, as the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing CWP No.25261 of 2022. As per the pleadings, the alleged cause of action arose on 31.10.1996, whereas, the petitioner’