Petitioner challenged the age limit for pension regularization after a 20-year delay, relying on a Lok Adalat order. The court dismissed the petition as time-barred and struck by laches, noting the petitioner admitted retirement in 1978 but filed the writ in 2001.
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.
CWP No. 8122 of 2001 (O & M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 8122 of 2001 (O & M) Date of decision: 22.03.2014
Dal Chand
...Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA
Present: None for the petitioner.
Mr. Kshitij Sharma, AAG, Haryana.
G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J. (Oral)
Challenge in the present writ petition inter alia is to the clause (b) of para no. 2 of letter dated 02.02.1972 and 10.04.1978 (Annexures P-7 and P-2) being arbitrary and prayer has been made for issuance of a direction to the respondents to treat the petitioner absorbed in Haryana Government from 04.05.1971 and to have been regularized on 31.12.1980 and grant him pension and other pensionary benefits with interest at 18%.
A perusal of Annexure P-2 would go on to show that the petitioner was retired from service on 20.12.1977 on attaining the age of 55 years. The period from 20.12.1977 to 28.02.1978, over and above the age of 55 years for which he had been paid the salary, was regularized as extension in service. Thereafter, he did not challenge the said order and filed representation dated 11.04.1978. Thereafter, no action was taken by him. Thus, for a period of more than 20 long years, the petitioner did not
agitate for his rights. Thereafter, the present writ petition came to be filed Gupta Shivani 2014.03.25 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
CWP No. 8122 of 2001 (O & M)
2
in the year 2001 and reference was made to judgment passed by this Court in CWP No. 14654 of 1992 decided on 03.07.1996 (Annexure P-6).
In the written statement, specific plea has been taken that the petition is totally time barred and is hit by delay and laches. The petitioner cannot be permitted to raise a stale grouse as and when he wishes to. The laws of limitation cannot be totally ignored.
The present writ petition was admitted and ordered to be heard with CWP No. 13618 of 2000. The said case was disposed of on 13.05.2004 by the Lok Adalat by passing the following order:-
“For the reasons recorded in the case of Jaswant Singh in Civil Writ Petition No. 9144 of 1997, this writ petition is allowed with the directions to the respondents to re-consider the case of the petitioner by invoking the powers to exempt the age limit in the matter of grant of pension.
Copy of the order be supplied/sent to the counsel/parties and file be returned to the High Court.”
In CWP No. 9144 of 1997, the petitioner Jaswant Singh had challenged the order dated 06.01.1997 and this Court had, in such circumstances, directed that his case be reconsidered vide order dated 24.04.1998.
In the above said circumstances, no relief can be granted to the petitioner as the petitioner admittedly had been retired in the year 1978 by the impugned order and did not agitate for his rights for more than a period of 20 years and only filed the petition in the year 2001.
Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE
22.03.2014
Gupta Shivanishivani 2014.03.25 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition seeking regularization of service and pension filed after a delay of 20+ years is maintainable.
Whether the petitioner's failure to agitate rights for 20 years constitutes laches and bars the claim.
Dal Chand
State of Haryana
G.S. SANDHAWALIA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
