Pay Fixation Claim Raised Decades After Retirement Barred By Delay & Laches: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana Single Bench of Justice Harpreet Singh Brar dismissed a writ petition seeking refixation of pay and consequential arrears and retiral benefits, finding the claim barred by delay and laches. The petitioner, a retired employee of a state marketing board, alleged that his pay had been wrongly fixed in 1996 due to denial of an annual increment, affecting pensionary dues. The Court noted that he retired on 31.05.2017, yet raised the issue only through a representation dated 26.08.2024 and a legal notice dated 29.08.2025, and held that repeated representations cannot revive a stale claim; after retirement, the “continuing wrong” rationale was unavailable.
The writ petition was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of an order/reply dated 07.11.2025 issued in response to a legal notice, by which the petitioner’s claim was rejected. The petitioner also sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to refix his basic pay at ₹6,200 per month after granting one annual increment due on 01.01.1996, along with consequential arrears of pay and retiral benefits.
The petitioner was appointed as a Chowkidar on 01.06.1979 and subsequently retired from the post of Mandi Supervisor on 31.05.2017. His grievance was that under the Revised Pay Rules, 1998, he was not granted one increment due on 01.01.1996, resulting in fixation of his basic pay at ₹6,000 instead of ₹6,200. Reliance was placed on internal departmental communications dated 04.06.2020 and 05.07.2021, which were stated to acknowledge the alleged anomaly.
The respondents opposed the claim on the ground that the petitioner failed to exercise the requisite option under the Revised Pay Rules, 1998, and that the claim was raised after an inordinate delay. It was submitted that the petitioner remained silent throughout his service and for several years after retirement, rendering the claim stale and barred by delay and laches.
The Court observed that "the petitioner has approached this Court after a considerable lapse of time. The alleged wrong fixation occurred in the year 1996; the petitioner retired on 31.05.2017, yet the first representation was made by him only on 26.08.2024 (Annexure P-5), followed by a legal notice dated 29.08.2025 (Annexure P-6). 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. Since the petitioner is no longer in service, the benefit of "continuing wrong" is no longer available to him."
The Court noted that “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.”
While relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Chairman/Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Limited and Others vs. Ram Gopal, the Court recorded that “such rights cannot be enforced after an unreasonable lapse of time.” It further recorded that “consideration of unexplained delays and inordinate laches would always be relevant in writ actions.” The Court noted that “fence-sitters cannot be allowed to barge into Courts and cry for their rights at their convenience.”
The Court observed that “delay defeats equity.” It recorded 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.”
Relying upon Mrinmoy Maity vs. Chhanda Koley and others, the Court observed that “the High Courts must factor in the delay, while exercising its discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.” It further recorded that “undue and unexplained delay may be reason enough to dismiss a petition.”
On the issue of repeated representations, the Court noted that “repeated representations made will not keep the issues alive.” It recorded that “a stale or a dead issue/dispute cannot be got revived.”
With respect to pay fixation, the Court observed that "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."
The Court recorded that “the alleged wrong fixation occurred in the year 1996.” It noted that “the petitioner retired on 31.05.2017.” The Court further recorded that “the first representation was made by him only on 26.08.2024, followed by a legal notice dated 29.08.2025.”
The Court stated that “repeated representations will not keep the issues alive.” It recorded that “no plausible explanation has been offered by learned counsel for the petitioner for the delay in filing the present petition. Since the petitioner is no longer in service, the benefit of ‘continuing wrong’ is no longer available to him. This Court does not find it appropriate to invoke its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.” It directed that “the present writ petition is dismissed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Nirmal Singh Kandhola, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Abhilaksh Gaind, Standing Counsel, with Ms. Priya Jarial, Advocate
Case Title: Ajit Singh v. Punjab Mandi Board and Others
Neutral Citation: 2026: PHHC:006196
Case Number: CWP-1113-2026 (O&M)
Bench: Justice Harpreet Singh Brar
