Sher Singh Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Th e prayer made in the present writ petition is for seeking quashing of the action of the respondent depar t ment whereby the 2nd ACP was granted to the petitioner by considering his date of appointment as 01.07.1977 inst e ad of 12.08.1976. It is further p r ayed that the respondents be directed to revi s e the 2nd ACP of the petitioner by fixing his salary from the date of his regu l ar appointment, i.e., 12.08.1976 instead of 01.07.1977. 2. Le a rned Counsel appearing on beh a lf of the petitioner contends that the petition e r was appointed as a Diesel Pu m p Attendant on a temporary basis for a p e riod of six months from th e date of his joining, vide appointment let t er dated 06.08.1976. He joine d duty on 12.08.1976. In the year 1995, the post of Diesel Pump Attend a nt was abolished, and the

¶15

VISHAL SHARMA 2025.06.04 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

CWP-5731-2025 -2-

¶17

incumbents we r e appointed as Clerks in the De p artment; however, seniority was not grante d to them from the date of t h eir joining as Diesel Pump Attendants. Se v eral aggrieved persons approached this Court by filing various writ pe t itions seeking fixation of their seniority in accordance with the date of thei r initial appointment as Diesel P ump Attendants. Those writ petitions were a llowed by this Court, directi n g that the seniority of such persons be fixe d from the date of their joining a s Diesel Pump Attendants.

¶18

Th e petitioner also filed CWP-10 6 69-2002 before this Court, seeking benefit o f seniority, regular pay scale, h igher standard pay scale, and other conseque n tial benefits pertaining to the period of ad hoc/temporary service rendere d by him on the post of Diesel P u mp Attendant from the date of his initial a p pointment. The said writ peti t ion was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the pet i tioner’s claim in light of the judgment pass e d in CWP-8833-1999, decid e d on 09.01.2001. Pursuant thereto, the peti t ioner’s seniority was considere d from the date of his joining as a Diesel Pu m p Attendant, i.e., with effect fr o m 06.08.1976, subject to the final approval of the State Government, as reflected in the office order dated 24.09.2002.

¶19

T h e Department thereafter issued a consolidated seniority list of Diesel Pump Clerks vide letter dated 30.12.2007, wherein the petitioner’s name was reco r ded at Sr. No. 93, with his d a te of appointment shown as 12.08.1976. Hi s promotion to the post of As s istant was also reflected as having taken pl a ce on 04.10.2004.

¶20

VISHAL SHARMA 2025.06.04 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

CWP-5731-2025 -3-

¶22

It i s thus contended that since the d ate of appointment has been recorded as 12. 0 8.1976 and the petitioner has been shown as having been appointed to th e post of ‘Clerk’ with effect fr o m the said date, and further promoted on 0 4 .10.2004, the ACP ought to have been determined on the basis of the sai d date. However, while conside r ing the petitioner’s case for grant of the 2n d ACP, his pay was fixed with effect from 01.04.1977 vide letter dated 16.11.2009.

¶23

He contends that one Shashi Dha r an, who was appointed as a Diesel Pump A ttendant alongside the petitio n er vide appointment letter dated 06.08.19 7 6, had his salary fixed with e f fect from 01.09.1996 while granting the 2n d ACP. He submits that even a t the time of the petitioner’s further promoti o n to the post of Statistical Assi s tant, his date of appointment was shown as 12.08.1976, yet the benefit of th e said date was not extended while computi n g the date of grant of the 2 n d ACP. Consequently, the petitioner filed a Civil Suit before the Civil Jud g e (Junior Division), Ambala, bearing Civil S u it No. 260 of 2012, seeking a d e claration that he was entitled to promotion a s Superintendent, Haryana R oadways, with effect from 22.06.2010—th e date on which his junior, S hri Bihari Lal son of Shri Chand, had bee n promoted as Superintendent — and for consequential reliefs, including a ma n datory injunction directing the defendant to pay arrears and allowances. D u ring the pendency of the s a id suit, the petitioner was promoted to t h e post of Superintendent vi d e order dated 24.01.2013; however, he w a s granted only notional benefit s and not pay and allowances

¶24

VISHAL SHARMA 2025.06.04 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

CWP-5731-2025 -4-

¶26

for the period during which he did not actually perform the duties. The suit was decreed v ide judgment dated 01.02.2016, granting the petitioner notional promo t ion. The petitioner retired ther e after on 31.12.2012, and the calculation sheet was accordingly prepared.

¶27

He further submits that the petiti o ner had filed another Civil Suit for a decla r ation to the effect that he was e ntitled to a basic pay of Rs. 20,000/- with e ffect from 01.07.2012 in the s cale of 9300-34800 with a grade pay of 3 3 00, the same being granted to Surinder Kumar, Statistical Assistant, who w as junior to the petitioner as a Clerk, instead of the basic pay of Rs. 19,170/-. This suit was also decree d by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Am b ala vide judgment dated 20.02.2019, granting the said benefit. The St a te’s appeal against the aforesai d judgment and decree dated 20.02.2019 wa s dismissed by the Additional D istrict Judge, Ambala vide judgment and d e cree dated 05.04.2023. The pet i tioner thus contends that the respondents’ a c tion in computing the date o f appointment as 01.07.1977 instead of 12.08.1976 for the purpose of assessi n g the 2nd ACP is erroneous, and prays that the actual benefits be recalc u lated and extended to him accordingly.

¶28

I h a ve learned Counsel appearing o n behalf of the petitioner at length and ha v e gone through the docume n ts appended alongwith the present writ pet i tion.

¶29

Th e facts which undisputedly e m erge from the order dated 16.11.2009 (A n nexure P-4), whereby the d a te of regularization of the VISHAL SHARMA 2025.06.04 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶30

CWP-5731-2025 -5-

¶31

petitioner was t aken as 01.04.1977 instead of 12.08.1976, were passed by the respondent- a uthorities in November 2009. T hereafter, during the period of nearly sixteen years that elapsed, the petiti o ner preferred two civil suits for different rel i efs.

¶32

It is settled position in law that a litigant should seek all his relief(ies) at th e time of institution of proce e dings for which a cause of action has alre a dy accrued. The failure to do the needful debars a person from raising th e said grievance at a latest poi n t in time. The said principle enshrined unde r Order 2 Rule 2 CPC is recogni z ed as a lawful check against institution of successive suits. Even though CP C is not strictly applicable to writ proceeding s but such principles can be ad v erted to by the writ Court as well. In the pr e sent case, the petitioner had a lready approached the Civil Court thrice du r ing the time span of 16 years and once the remedy before Civil Court itse l f has become barred, it would n ot be appropriate for a writ Court to open a side walk to avoid the block. W rit jurisdiction is not to be devised as an e xception to law and claim exemption from its application. High Court wo u ld ususally not ignore the rele v ant statutes and procedures governing the r ights and the remedies unless there are reasons as would justify the invo c ation of the writ remedy to mee t the ends of justice. No such compelling cir c umstances are shown to exist for which the period of 16 years may be ig n ored. A claim filed at a belated stage, especially after nearly sixteen years o f the order initially having bee n passed, does not merit an interference. T h e instant writ petition is thus f i led at a highly belated stage

¶33

VISHAL SHARMA 2025.06.04 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶34

CWP-5731-2025 -6-

¶35

and is hence b a rred by delay & laches and a part from the principles of acquiescence a n d waiver. The same is accordin g ly dismissed in limine.

¶36

	(VI	N OD S. BHARDWAJ)
MAY 22, 2025 Vishal Sharma		JUDGE
	Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes/No
	Whether Reportable	: Yes/No

¶37

VISHAL SHARMA 2025.06.04 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Sher Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sher Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Darshan Singh and Others Vs Bhakra Beas Management Board and Others

Jaswinder Singh Vs Bank of India and Ors.

D.v.Rana Vs State of Haryana etc.

Dusyant Sharma Vs State of Haryana and Others

Tara Chand Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Ajay Kumar Vs Bandhan Bank Ltd. and Others