Balwinder Singh v. The Punjab State Power Corporation Limited And Others

-1IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Decided on: 19.03.2026 Balwinder Singh .... Petitioner versus Punjab State Power Corp. Ltd. and others .... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Present:

Mr. Pankaj Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Shreya B. Sarin, Advocate for respondents.

**** Harpreet Singh Brar, J. (Oral) Prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order dated 17.05.2013 (Annexure P-4) passed by Punishing Authority whereby two Annual Grade Increments with future effect has been ordered to be stopped and order dated 23.12.2015 (Annexure P-6) passed by Appellate Authority vide which the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner retired as Junior Engineer from respondent -Corporation on 31.03.2019. He was served a charge-sheet on 13.09.2011 (Annexure P-1). The petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 23.11.2011 (Annexure P-2) and made a statement in his defence before Inquiry Officer on 28.12.2012 (Annexure P-3). The foundation of the allegations against the petitioner was

-2completely demolished by the test report of ME lab, which found the meters in question in working condition indicating no theft of electricity or financial loss to the Corporation. Despite this conclusive finding, the Punishing Authority passed the impugned order on 17.05.2013 (Annexure P-4) stopping his two Annual Grade Increments with future effect. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order before the Appellate Authority, which was dismissed on 23.12.2015 (Annexure P-6) without proper consideration of the grounds raised. The petitioner was not properly guided and preferred a civil suit, which was withdrawn on 13.09.2025 (Annexure P-7) to pursue the present writ petition.

3.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation has opposed the prayer made in the present petition and submits that the same is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. 4.

Admittedly, the Punishing Authority passed the order dated 17.05.2013 (Annexure P-4) awarding punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments with future effect, which was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal, which was dismissed on 23.12.2015 (Annexure P-6) and the petitioner remained indolent and thereafter in the year 2024, he filed a civil suit bearing No.CS-23-2024 titled as Balwinder Singh vs. The Joint Secretary, Technical-2, which was withdrawn without seeking any liberty to invoke any alternate remedy or to file present writ petition. As such, present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

5.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material available on record, it transpires that a charge-sheet was

-3served to the petitioner on 13.09.2011 (Annexure P-1), which culminated into order of punishment dated 17.05.2013 (Annexure P-4). The petitioner's appeal (Annexure P-5) against the aforesaid order was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 23.12.2015 (Annexure P-6) but petitioner has not assailed the either order passed by the Punishing Authority or the Appellate Authority for several years and only in the year 2024, he preferred a civil suit, which was also withdrawn on 13.09.2025 (Annexure P-7). There is no justifiable explanation forthcoming for challenging the order passed by the Punishing Authority or the Appellate Authority after almost 9 years. 6.

It is trite law that the delay in approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be condoned if sufficient cause is indicated or a reasonable explanation is provided for the same. However, the facts of the matter at hand indicate otherwise. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to specify any compelling or extenuating circumstance which prevented him from approaching this Court for such a long time. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by a threeJudge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chairman/Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Limited and Others vs. Ram Gopal (2021) 13 SCC 225, wherein, the following was held:

"16. Whilst it is true that limitation does not strictly apply to proceedings under Articles or of the Constitution of India, nevertheless, such rights cannot be enforced after an unreasonable lapse of time. Consideration of unexplained delays and inordinate laches would always be relevant in writ actions, and writ courts naturally ought to be reluctant in exercising their discretionary jurisdiction to protect those who have slept over wrongs and allowed illegalities to fester. Fence- sitters cannot be allowed to barge into Courts and cry for their rights at their convenience, and vigilant citizens ought not to be treated alike

-4with mere opportunists. On multiple occasions, it has been restated that there are implicit limitations of time within which writ remedies can be enforced. In SS Balu v. State of Kerala, this Court observed thus:

"17. It is also well settled principle of law that "delay defeats equity". .... It is now a trite law that where the writ petitioner approaches the High Court after a long delay, reliefs prayed for may be denied to them on the ground of delay and laches irrespective of the fact that they are similarly situated to the other candidates who obtain the benefit of the judgment."" (emphasis added) 7.

Further, in Mrinmoy Maity vs. Chhanda Koley and others 2024 AIR SC 2717, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically observed that the High Courts must factor in the delay, while exercising its discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was further opined that undue and unexplained delay may be reason enough to dismiss a petition as indolent litigants ought not to be encouraged by writ Courts. 8.

In State of Uttaranchal v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari, (2013) 12 SCC 179, while considering the issue regarding delay and laches and referring to earlier judgments on the issue, a Two-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court opined that repeated representations made will not keep the issues alive. A stale or a dead issue/dispute cannot be got revived even if such a representation has either been decided by the authority or got decided by getting a direction from the court as the issue regarding delay and laches is to be decided with reference to original cause of action and not with reference to any such order passed. Delay and laches on the part of a government servant may deprive him of the benefit which had been given to others. Article 14 of the Constitution of India, in a situation of that nature, will not be attracted as it

-5is well settled that law leans in favour of those who are alert and vigilant. 9.

In Union of India and others v. M. K. Sarkar, (2010) 2 SCC 59, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has ruled that when a belated representation in regard to a 'stale' or 'dead' issue/dispute is considered and decided, in compliance with a direction by the court/tribunal to do so, the date of such decision cannot be considered as furnishing a fresh cause of action for reviving the 'dead' issue or time-barred dispute. The issue of limitation or delay and laches should be considered with reference to the original cause of action and not with reference to the date on which an order is passed in compliance with a Court's direction. Neither a court's direction to consider a representation issued without examining the merits, nor a decision given in compliance with such direction, will extend the limitation, or erase the delay and laches.

10.

Moreover, with regards to issues regarding fixation of pay, the position of law has been settled by a two-Judge Bench Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.R. Gupta v. Union of India, (1995) 5 SCC 628 and has been reaffirmed by a full bench decision of this Court in Saroj Kumari v. State of Punjab, 1998(3) SCT 664. Accordingly, so long as an employee is in service, a petition claiming refixation of pay is not barred by limitation or the doctrine of laches, as the denial of benefit occurs every month when the salary is paid, thereby giving rise to a fresh cause of action, based on continuing wrong. Such a case is not a case of one time action like the case of termination or dismissal from service. However, payment of arrears can be restricted to a reasonable period. Three years and two months has been considered to be a reasonable period as

-6that is the period for which a person can ask for the payment of arrears before a Civil Court. However, once an employee ceases to be in service, the wrong fixation of pay can no longer be treated as a continuing wrong. Consequently, a petition seeking such fixation, if instituted after cessation of service and with substantial delay, is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. Reliance can be placed on the judgement of the co-ordinate bench of this Court in Prem Nath v. State of Punjab, 2018(2) SCT 687, wherein the petitioners approached this Court seeking correct fixation of pay much subsequent to their superannuation. While dismissing the petition on the ground of delay and laches, the Court held as follows: "10. The reliance placed by counsel upon the judgment in Saroj Kumar's case, is wholly misplaced.

The observations and aspect of delay in Saroj Kumar's case, were in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in M.R. Gupta v. Union of India and others, 1996(1) S.C.T 8 : 1995(4) RSJ 502. In M.R. Gupta's case (supra), it had been categorically held that so long as an employee "is in service" a fresh cause of action arises every month when he is getting his monthly salary on the basis of a wrong calculation made contrary to rules.

11. In the present case, however, the petitioners choose not to agitate their claim while in service. It is much subsequent to their superannuation that they have woken up and seek to gain impetus from certain decisions that may have been rendered in the case of similarly situated employees." (emphasis supplied) 11.

In the present case, the petitioner has approached this Court after a considerable lapse of time. Repeated representations will not keep the issues alive and no plausible explanation has been offered by learned counsel for the petitioner for the delay in filing the present petition.

-712.

In view of the discussion above, this Court does not find it appropriate to invoke its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) 19.03.2026 JUDGE sonia Whether speaking/non-speaking?

Yes/No Whether reportable?

Yes/No