The court dismissed the writ petition challenging a rejection of a claim for pay scale enhancement raised over six years after the petitioner's retirement, holding that delay and laches preclude such a stale claim.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.W.P. No. 117 of 2010 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 117 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.11.2012
Fazal Masih
.. Petitioner
v.
Punjab University and another
.. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. Vikram Bali, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rahul Garg, Advocate for the respondents.
Rajesh Bindal J.
The petitioner has approached this court challenging the order dated 18.6.2009, passed by respondent No. 2, whereby his case for treating him at par with Medical Laboratory Technician Grade-I in view of the qualification possessed by him, was rejected.
It is a case where the petitioner, who was serving as Laboratory Technician in Panjab University, retired on 31.12.1999. During his service career, he did not raise any dispute about the pay scales granted to him. For the first time, a representation was made on 8.3.2006. The same having not been decided, the petitioner approached this court by filing CWP No. 11668 of 2008, whereby vide order dated 3.12.2008, the respondents were directed to decide the representation of the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner having been rejected vide impugned order, the same has been challenged in the present petition.
Considering the fact that the petitioner retired from service on 31.12.1999 and the claim pertaining to the pay scales, which may be
C.W.P. No. 117 of 2010 [2]
admissible to the petitioner during the service career, was sought to be raised more than six years after his retirement. The claim made at such a late stage deserves to be dismissed on account of delay and laches only. Even repeated representations also do not bring a stale claim within limitation. The petitioner could raise a grievance about the pay scales admissible to him or the last pay drawn by him within reasonable time after his retirement. He cannot be permitted to raise the same at any time on the plea that the same is recurring cause of action. For the purpose reference can be made to C.W.P. No. 18498 of 2011—Bal Krishan v. State of Punjab and others, decided on 4.9.2012.
For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is dismissed.
(Rajesh Bindal) Judge
23.11.2012 mk
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a late claim regarding pay scales raised more than six years after retirement deserves to be dismissed on account of delay and laches.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bal Krishan v. State of Punjab and othersReferred¶16
C.W.P. No. 18498 of 2011—Bal Krishan v. State of Punjab and others, decided on 4.9.2012
Fazal Masih
Punjab University
Rajesh Bindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
