September 17, 2025 1. CWP-13951-2021 Sharma Ji Go a Ji Goyat and others oners v. 2. Jai Parkash CWP-24337-2022 SUS
Case Details
CWP-13951 951-2021& CWP-24337-2022 1 N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA IN TH AT CHANDIGA DIGARH NJAB AND HARYANA cases) 235(2 cases) Date of , 2025 ate of Decision: September 17, 2025 1. CWP-13951-2021 Sharma Ji Go a Ji Goyat and others oners .....Petitioners State of Hary f Haryana and others dents ..Respondents SUS VERSUS 2. Jai Parkash CWP-24337-2022 SUS VERSUS itioner .....Petitioner State of Hary f Haryana and others dents ..Respondents CORAM: Present : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA Mr. Sandeep Thakan, Advocate f E HARPREET SINGH BRAR ocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Piyush Khanna, Addl. AG, H Mr. Sumit Gupta, Advocate for r CWP-13951-2021. Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Advocate for CWP-24337-2022. AG, Haryana. te for respondents No.2 and 3 in ate for respondents No.2 to 4 in HARPREET REET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) 1. This order of mine shall dispose of the This or titions of the above-mentioned writ petitions as they arise arise from a similar factual matrix. H revity, trix. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are t ts are taken from CWP-24337-2022. 2. The present writ petition(s) have been The pr of the e been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution tution of India for issuance of an ap in the an appropriate writ or order in the nature of man mandamus directing the responde , pay pondents to grant the promotion, pay PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.09.24 18:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-13951 951-2021& CWP-24337-2022 2 fixation and n and pensionary benefits as Commer istant, mmercial Assistant, Circle Assistant, Head Clerk a lerk and Circle Superintendent to peti iority to petitioner, after fixing the seniority list at par w par with the juniors who passed th er the sed the departmental exam after the petitioner in ner in view of the order passed by t 42 of d by this Court in CWP No.9342 of 1988, decide decided on 10.09.1992 titled as Jagdis ana agdish Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others (Annexure P-1) which judgment h uently ment has been followed subsequently in RSA No.4 No.494 of 2014, decided on 06.05.2 ana 6.05.2014 titled as Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran ran Nigam Limited and others Vs and s Vs. Madhu Bala and others and direct the res the respondents to release the arrears est @ arrears of pay along with interest @ 18%. CONTENTI ENTIONS 3. Learned counsel for the petitio s that petitioner(s) inter alia contends that petitioner joi ner joined the services of Haryana Sta retired na State Electricity Board and retired on 31.01.200 01.2007 after service of more than th ner is than three decades. The petitioner is claiming pro g promotion, pay fixation and pensi th his pensionary benefits at par with his junior namel namely Sh. Maha Singh, in terms ed by terms of the judgment passed by coordinate B nate Bench of this Court in CWP-216 Lal 21603-2016, titled as Mithan Lal Gupta Vs. St State of Haryana and others, dec exure , decided on 09.01.2019 (Annexure P-12). Furthe Further, learned counsel for the petit n the e petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of nt of this Court in CWP-9342-1988 Vs. 1988, titled as Jagdish Singh Vs. Haryana St State Electricity Board and ot .1992 d others, decided on 10.09.1992 (Annexure P ure P-1), wherein it has been held Upper n held that seniority list of Upper Division Cle n Clerks (UDC) be revised and dir , who d directed that recruited UDCs, who failed to qu to qualify departmental examinatio f five ination within two years of five PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.09.24 18:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-13951 951-2021& CWP-24337-2022 3 successive ch sive chances, should be placed below lready below the UDCs who had already qualified the ed the examination for the promotio ndent omotion. Thereafter, the respondent wrote certain certain letters on 24.10.2006 and 23.02 iority 23.02.2007 for revising the seniority of UDCs. F Cs. Further, Sh. Maha Singh, who to the , who was similarly situated to the petitioner wa ner was working in DHBVNL and had Civil nd had filed civil suit before the Civil Judge (Junior (Junior Division), Gurgaon, for granti ty and granting him benefit of seniority and arrears of pa of pay at par with junior Sh.Ram N it was Ram Nath Singh. The civil suit was decreed vide d vide judgment dated 14.05.2012. Pu
Legal Reasoning
ppeal 12. Pursuant thereto, the First Appeal filed against gainst the judgment dated 14.05.2 stands 4.05.2012 by respondent(s) stands dismissed vi sed vide judgment dated 26.07.2013 egular 7.2013(Annexure P-3). The regular second appea appeal was also filed against the judg supra) e judgment dated 26.07.2013 (supra) which was a was also dismissed by this Court o 4). ourt on 06.05.2014 (Annexure P-4). Thereafter th fter the Special Leave Petition was a gainst was also filed by respondent against the judgment gment passed by this Court on 06.05 Court, 06.05.2014 before the Apex Court, which also st also stands dismissed (Annexure P-5) ntitled 5). As such, petitioner is entitled to the same same relief which was granted to Sh ho is to Sh. Maha Singh (supra), who is similarly situ ly situated. Further the issue with reg list, it ith regard to revised seniority list, it has attained f ained finality in terms of the judgment nch of gment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in urt in LPA-192-1993, titled Jagdish and dish Singh Versus H.P.S.E.B and others, decid decided on 24.02.1998. Moreover, d the eover, the petitioner has passed the departmental ental examination prior to his juniors ted all juniors and they have been granted all the benefits nefits with regard to pay fixation h, the ation and promotion. As such, the petitioner is e ner is entitled to the same relief. PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.09.24 18:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-13951 951-2021& CWP-24337-2022 4 4. Learned counsel for respondent s filed ondents No.2 to 4-UHBVN has filed written statem statement on behalf of respondents N 2022. dents No.1 to 3 in CWP-24337-2022. Copy thereof hereof be supplied to the opposite co en on site counsel and the same is taken on record. Regis . Registry to do the needful. 5. Per contra learned counsel for at the for the respondent(s) submits that the claim of the p f the petitioner is hit by delay and latch olent, d latches. The petitioner is an indolent, fence sitter an tter and his claim cannot be considered tuated dered at this stage and similarly situated counterparts to parts to him have raised their claims well ght of s well within time, whereas, the right of the petitioner tioner crystallized in the year 2007 when when he retired from the service. OBSERVATI VATION & ANALYSIS 6. I have heard the learned couns ell as counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent(s) dent(s) and have gone through the case ance. e case file with their able assistance. 7. Perusal of the record show shows f that counterparts of the the petitioner(s), ner(s), ‘Sh. Maha Singh’ had filed th nd the led the suit well within time and the suit was decr s decreed on 14.05.2012 by the learne ision), learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurgaon. Fur n. Further, ‘Jagdish Singh’ has filed th
Decision
r 1988 filed the writ petition in the year 1988 and one ‘M e ‘Mithan Lal Gupta’ had filed w 2016, led writ petition in the year 2016, whereas, the s, the petitioner has approached this C d had this Court in the year 2022 and had served the leg the legal notice only on 25.06.2022. P of the 022. Powers under Article 226 of the Constitution tution do not come to the aid of th d the of the tardy, the indolent, and the lethargic. Fen Fence-sitters cannot be allowed to ry for wed to barge into Courts and cry for their rights at ghts at their convenience, and vigilant reated igilant citizens ought not to be treated alike with me ith mere opportunists. PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.09.24 18:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-13951 951-2021& CWP-24337-2022 5 8. It is trite law that the delay in under lay in approaching this Court under Article 226 o 226 of the Constitution of India may cause a may be condoned if sufficient cause is indicated o ated or a reasonable explanation is pr ever, n is provided for the same. However, the facts of t ts of the matter at hand indicate othe or the te otherwise. Learned counsel for the petitioner has ner has failed to specify any compelli stance mpelling or extenuating circumstance which preven prevented them from approaching th time. ing this Court for such a long time. Reference in nce in this regard may be made to the hree- the judgment rendered by a Three Judge Benc Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme ging preme Court in Chairman/Managing Director, U. , U.P. Power Corporation Limited opal mited and Others vs. Ram Gopal (2021) 13 SC 3 SCC 225, wherein, the following w wing was held: “16. Whilst it is true that limit proceedings under Articles 32 India, nevertheless, such right unreasonable lapse of time. delays and inordinate laches w actions, and writ courts natur exercising their discretionary ju have slept over wrongs and Fence- sitters cannot be allowe for their rights at their conv ought not to be treated alike multiple occasions, it has been limitations of time within which In SS Balu v. State of Kerala, th limitation does not strictly apply to ly to 32 or 226 of the Constitution of n of r an rights cannot be enforced after an ined me. Consideration of unexplained es would always be relevant in writ writ t in aturally ought to be reluctant in who ry jurisdiction to protect those who and allowed illegalities to fester. ster. cry lowed to barge into Courts and cry zens convenience, and vigilant citizens alike with mere opportunists. On On een restated that there are implicit licit ced. hich writ remedies can be enforced. , this Court observed thus: “17. It is also well settle defeats equity". .... It is writ petitioner approache delay, reliefs prayed for ground of delay and lach they are similarly situate obtain the benefit of the j elay ettled principle of law that "delay t is now a trite law that where the the aches the High Court after a long long the for may be denied to them on the laches irrespective of the fact that that tuated to the other candidates who who ded) he judgment.”” (emphasis added) PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.09.24 18:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-13951 951-2021& CWP-24337-2022 6 9. Further, in Mrinmoy Maity V hers ty Vs. Chhanda Koley and others 2024 AIR SC R SC 2717, the Hon’ble Supreme C erved eme Court has categorically observed that the Hig e High Courts must factor in the g its in the delay, while exercising its discretionary ionary powers under Article 226 of th It was 6 of the Constitution of India. It was further opine opined that undue and unexplained d gh to ined delay may be reason enough to dismiss a pet s a petition as indolent litigants ough y writ ought not to be encouraged by writ Courts. 10. In State of Uttaranchal Vs. S dari, . Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari, (2013) 12 SC 2 SCC 179, while considering the is laches the issue regarding delay and laches and referring ferring to earlier judgments on the iss of the the issue, a Two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supr le Supreme Court opined that repeated ill not peated representations made will not keep the issu e issues alive. A stale or a dead issue vived d issue/dispute cannot be got revived even if such such a representation has either been or got r been decided by the authority or got decided by g d by getting a direction from the cou delay he court as the issue regarding delay and laches is hes is to be decided with reference to nd not nce to original cause of action and not with referenc ference to any such order passed. De ed. Delay and laches on the part of rt of a government s ment servant may deprive him of the b ven to f the benefit which had been given to others. Articl Article 14 of the Constitution of Ind aid of of India will not come to the aid of such governm overnment employees as it is well set our of ell settled that law leans in favour of those who are ho are alert and vigilant. 11. In view of the discussion abov ind it n above, this Court does not find it appropriate to riate to invoke its extraordinary writ j 26 of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitut nstitution of India. Accordingly, bo stand ly, both the present petitions stand dismissed, so sed, so also the pending miscellaneous neous application(s), if any. PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.09.24 18:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-13951 951-2021& CWP-24337-2022 7 12. Photocopy of this order be pl ected be placed on the file of connected cases. RAR) (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE September P.C ber 17, 2025 Whether speaking/reasone Whether Reportable. : easoned. : Yes/No Yes/No PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.09.24 18:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document