Roop Lal v. State Of Haryana And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 06.03.2026 ROOP LAL ....Appellant

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR *****

Present:

Mr. Krishan Singh, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Rajesh Gaur, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana. ***** ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. (Oral) 1.

The appellant superannuated from the Haryana Urban Local Bodies Department on 30.04.2001. Ever since then, he is drawing pension. A decision was taken by the Urban Local Bodies Department of Haryana to extend the benefit of revised pension w.e.f. 01.04.2010 pursuant to the 6th Pay Commission report, which became effective from 01.01.2006. 2.

It transpires that certain employees filed CWP-11962-2010 claiming arrears of the revised pension from 01.01.2006 to 01.04.2010. This petition was disposed of on 07.03.2012, accepting the claim of revised pension being from 01.01.2006 instead of 01.04.2010. The State of Haryana challenged the direction in Civil Appeal No.6299 of 2014, which was also dismissed on 30.11.2023. Thereafter, while extending the benefit of arrears of the revised pension, the State of Haryana uniformly extended such benefit to all, including the appellant. It is thereafter that the appellant has approached the Writ Court

stating that he ought to be paid interest on the delayed release of the arrears of revised pension. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground of laches.

3.

Learned counsel submits that once the arrears of the revised pension are paid in the year 2023, any claim for payment of interest on such delay of arrears can be instituted thereafter, and therefore, there is no delay in filing of the writ petition.

4.

The appeal is opposed by the learned State counsel. 5.

Admittedly, the right to receive arrears of revised pension arose to the appellant in the year 2010. It is undisputed that no claim for such arrears was lodged by the appellant. It was only the petitioners in CWP-11962-2010 who raised such a claim. The dispute ultimately got settled in favour of the petitioners therein. While implementing the directions therein, the State of Haryana has extended the benefit of arrears of the revised pension to everyone else, including the appellant.

6.

In the facts of the case, it is apparent that the appellant had never raised any claim with regard to payment of arrears of revised pension. Merely because the State has extended such benefit now, relying upon the judgment of this Court in CWP-11962-2010, the appellant cannot be permitted to claim interest on such delayed release of arrears of revised pension, inasmuch as the status of the appellant would at best be that of a fence-sitter. 7.

We are inclined to concur with the view taken by the learned Single Judge, as per which such claim is grossly barred by laches. The observations made by the Supreme Court in Chairman/Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Limited and Others v. Ram Gopal (2021) 13 SCC 225, have

rightly been relied upon by the learned Single Judge to non-suit the appellant. 8.

In such view of the matter, appeal stands dismissed accordingly. 9.

Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of
(ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA) JUDGE (ROHIT KAPOOR) MARCH 06, 2026 JUDGE mohit goyal Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes / No Whether reportable :

Yes / No