CWP-465-2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-465-2008 (O&M) Reserved on : 07.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 15.07.2026 Date of Uploading : 17.07.2026 Jagdev Singh ......Petitioner Vs. The District & Sessions Judge, Patiala and others ......Respondents Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? NO Whether full judgment is pronounced? YES CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present : Mr. Tarunveer Vashist, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ranjit Singh Kalra, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Ravneet S. Joshi, DAG, Punjab, for respondent No.3. **** SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. (ORAL) 1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to order dated 30.11.2005, whereby the petitioner was retired from service at the age of 58 years. SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends as under:- (i) that the petitioner joined the establishment of the Subordinate Courts at Patiala as a Waterman on 16.11.1966 under the administrative control of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. During his long and VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.07.17 16:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-465-2008 (O&M) -2- unblemished service, he was promoted as Process Server and subsequently as Bailiff vide Office Order dated 20.09.1997. At the time of his initial appointment as well as his subsequent promotion, his service conditions were governed by the Rules framed by the Hon’ble High Court under Section 35(3) of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, as incorporated in Chapter 18-A of the High Court Rules and Orders. Under this statutory framework, Process Servers and Bailiffs were treated as Inferior Government Servants for the purpose of retirement and their age of superannuation was regulated by Fundamental Rule 56 read with Articles 481 to 485 of the Civil Service Regulations. Fundamental Rule 56(e) expressly stipulated that a Class IV Government servant shall retire on attaining the age of 60 years. Likewise, Rule 9 of the Central (Class IV) Services (Gratuity, Pension and Retirement) Rules, 1936, incorporated under Article 481 of the Civil Service Regulations, also prescribed the age of retirement the petitioner as 60 years. (ii) Further, that the respondents themselves acknowledged the petitioner’s entitlement to continue in service until the age of 60 years. And seniority list circulated in July 1999 (Annexure P-2) specifically recorded the date of retirement of petitioner as 30.11.2007. Although the Punjab Subordinate Courts (Establishment and VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.07.17 16:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-465-2008 (O&M) -3- Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997 (in short, ‘Rules 1997’) came into force with effect from 05.02.1999, the said Rules do not prescribe any separate age of superannuation for Bailiffs. Rule 11 of the Rules 1997 specifically provides that matters relating to pay, leave, pension and superannuation shall continue to be governed by the Rules and Government Instructions applicable to Punjab Government employees, as adopted by the Hon’ble High Court. And subsequent to the revision of pay scales pursuant to the recommendations of the Fourth Punjab Pay Commission, the post of Bailiff was reclassified as a Group ‘C’ post. However, the State Government, vide Instructions dated 26.11.2002, categorically clarified that employees who were originally Class IV employees but had been placed in Group ‘C’ solely on account of pay revision would continue to retire on attaining the age of 60 years. Consequently, the Petitioner's age of superannuation remained unaffected. (iii) Further contends that Rule 2(f) of the 1997 Rules expressly excludes Bailiffs from the definition of “Ministerial Service”, thereby preserving their distinct service status. Rule 19 of the Rules 1997 further safeguards all accrued rights, privileges, obligations and liabilities existing under the repealed Rules. The VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.07.17 16:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-465-2008 (O&M) -4- petitioner’s vested right to remain in service until attaining the age of 60 years, therefore, stood fully protected. (iv) Further that the respondents have neither issued, nor relied upon any statutory amendment, notification or administrative instruction reducing the age of retirement of Bailiffs from 60 years to 58 years. In the absence of any enabling provision, Respondent No. 1 has unlawfully retired the petitioner from service on 30.11.2005 by passing the impugned Office Order (Annexure P-7). (v) Further that the impugned action is ex facie arbitrary, illegal and wholly unsustainable, being in direct contravention of the governing statutory Rules, the Government Instructions dated 26.11.2002 and the saving provision contained in Rule 19 of the 1997 Rules. The respondents have also adopted a discriminatory approach, as similarly situated Bailiffs, including Shri Devinder Singh and Shri Ajmer Singh, were permitted to continue in service until attaining the age of 60 years. (vi) Further that as a consequence of the petitioner’s illegal premature retirement, he has been wrongfully deprived of two years of service, annual increments, salary, pension, gratuity and all other consequential retiral and monetary benefits. VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.07.17 16:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-465-2008 (O&M) -5- (vii) Further that the impugned Office Order dated 30.11.2005 is, therefore, liable to be quashed as being arbitrary, illegal, violative of the statutory service Rules, the Government Instructions dated 26.11.2002, the saving clause embodied in Rule 19 of the 1997 Rules, and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. (viii) Further that the petitioner, accordingly, prays that the impugned Office Order dated 30.11.2005 be set aside; that he be deemed to have remained in continuous service until 30.11.2007; that his pay, pension and all retiral benefits be re-fixed by treating 30.11.2007 as his actual date of superannuation; and that all consequential monetary benefits, including arrears of salary, pension and retiral dues together with applicable interest, be released in his favour. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 submits as under:- (i) that the petitioner retired from Government service upon attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years on 30.11.2005, vide order dated 30.11.2005 (Annexure P-7). The Petitioner accepted the said retirement without protest and remained silent for a considerable period. (ii) Further that the petitioner filed previous writ petition i.e. CWP No. 10329 of 2007, in July 2007, which was approximately one and a half years after his retirement. VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.07.17 16:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-465-2008 (O&M) -6- This petition was subsequently withdrawn on 29.10.2007 with liberty to file a fresh one (Annexure P-8). The present petition was filed only in January 2008, more than two years after the cause of action arose. (iii) Further that this inordinate and unexplained delay is fatal to the petition. The petitioner has acquiesced to his retirement by accepting benefits and by failing to challenge the retirement order in a timely manner. The conduct of the petitioner amounts to a waiver of his right to challenge the retirement. (iv) Further that it is a settled principle of law that a person who is not vigilant and sleeps over their rights cannot be granted relief under the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, U.P. Jal Nigam v. Jaswant Singh, (SC), 2007(1) SCT 224 has held that relief should not be granted to persons who approach the court after their retirement, having accepted the same without protest. The Court observed that granting relief at such a belated stage would cause a huge financial burden on the employer and would be a great setback to the financial management of the institution. The petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches and acquiescence alone. VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.07.17 16:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-465-2008 (O&M) -7- 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole file of this case with their able assistance. 5. A perusal of the file shows that petitioner is relying upon circular dated 26.11.2002 (Annexure P-4), which is addressed to all the Heads of Departments, Commissioners of Divisions, Registrar Punjab and Haryana High Court and Divisional Commissioners, etc. in the State of Punjab, wherein it is stated that “after careful consideration, it has been decided that all those categories of employees who were in Class IV earlier but after the re-classification on the basis of advice of the 4th Punjab Pay Commission, now falls in Group ‘C’ by virtue of higher pay scales may be allowed to retire at the age of 60 years. Further that this relaxation in the retirement age could be available to only those Class-IV employees who now fall in Group-C and who were recruited in Class-IV prior to the date on which the recommendations of the 4th Punjab Pay Commission were implemented i.e. 08.09.2000.” 6. The relevant portion of the reply filed by the respondent No.1 is reproduced as under:- “PRELIMINARY SUBMISSIONS:- 1. The present petition does not disclose any cause of action in favour of petitioner since the petitioner has not disclosed the fact that the High Court Rules and Orders in respect of ‘The Punjab Subordinate Courts Establishment (Recruitment and General Conditions of Service) Rules 1997’ were amended and existing Chapter 18, Part-A stood substituted on 05.02.1999, through correction slip dated 25.04.2003. Consequently, the detinition of ‘Ministerial Servant’ as defined under Rule 2(f) underwent a change in as much as the corrected definition reads as: “Ministerial Servant” means a member of service whose duties are entirely clerical and any other class of service specially defined as such by VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.07.17 16:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-465-2008 (O&M) -8- general or special order by the High Court and shall include members of Class II and III service other than Process Servers and Class IV employees.” 2. The admitted position insofar as the Petitioner is concerned is that he was promoted as Bailiff on 23.9.1997. He continued to serve in this post until 25.4.2003 when the definition of ministerial servant underwent a change. After this amendment, the petitioner came into the category of Class III employees under rule 7. He, therefore, ceased to be a Class IV employee. According to the Punjab Civil Services Vol. I Part I containing the rule 3.26 (a) all government employees other than Class IV employees will retire on attaining the age of 58 years. Thus, the petitioner who was born on 8.11.1947 has correctly been retired on 30.11.2005. That is so far as the contention of the Petitioner that he has been discriminated against vis-à-vis Ajmer Singh, it is respectfully submitted that Ajmer Singh retired on 31.10.1991 which is before the coming into force of the 1997 rules and the correction slip dated 25.4.2003. Hence no parity can be claimed on this basis. 3. The Writ Petition is not maintainable in the present form as barred by Doctrine of laches, as has been summarized in Halsbury’s Laws of England, Para 911, page 395 as follows:- “in determining whether there has been such delay as to amounts to laches the chief points to be considered are: (i) Acquiescence on the claimant's part; and (ii) any change of position that has occurred on the defendant’s part? Acquiescence in this sense does not mean standing by while the violation of a right is in progress, but assent after the violation has been completed and the claimant has become aware of it. It is unjust to give the claimant a remedy where, by his conduct, he has done that which might farely be regarded as equivalent to a waiver of it, or whereby his conduct and neglect, though not waiving the remedy, he has put the other party in a position in which it would not be reasonable to place him if the remedy were afterwards to be asserted. In such cases lapse of time and delay are most material. Upon these considerations rests the doctrine of laches.” The Petitioner retired from Government Service on 30.11.2005 on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years as required under rule 3.26(a) of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-1, Part-1, as the services of the petitioner were termed as Class-III under rule 2(f) of Punjab Subordinate Courts Establishment (Recruitment VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.07.17 16:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-465-2008 (O&M) -9- and General Conditions of Service), Rules 1997, which substituted the Chapter 18, Part-A of the High Court Rule and Order Volume-1. The Petitioner did not file any objection or representation against the substitution of his service condition, as such the same attains finality and becomes applicable upon the Petitioner and he has got no right to raise such matter i.e. regarding his age of superannuation in the present writ petition at this belated stage. The Petitioner retired from Government Service on 30.11.2005 as his date of birth is 08.11.1947 vide Annexure-P7. The petitioner accepted the retirement and collected his post retirmental benefits. He never filed any representation nor challenged his retirement immediately on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years. The Petitioner kept silent till he completes age of 60 years and thereafter he filed the present writ petition challenging his retirement. The Petitioner has not explained the reasons as to why he did not challenge his retirement immediately after 30.11.2005 when he was retired from the Government Service and accepted the same and collected the retirement benefits. At this belated stage, he has got no right to challenge his retirement and he filed the present writ petition to take the benefit of service without doing any work. As such, on the principle of no work no pay the present writ petition lacks merit. It has been held in the case of Chairman, U.P Jal Nigam Versus Jaswant Singh, 2007 (1) RSJ, Page 479, 2007(1) SLR-560, by the Hon'ble Apex Court at Paragraph 15 as under:- “Learned counsel for the appellants has also pointed out that at this belated stage if the relief is given to the respondents who have retired and accepted the retirement that will cause a huge burden to the Nigam to the tune of Rs.17,80,43,108/- and there is no sufficient funds for incurring such a huge amount at this belated stage. This will completely ruin the financial condition of the Nigam if all the persons who were not vigilant and did not take up their cause before the court, it would prove a great set back to the Nigam. In this regard, a reference was made to a decision of this court in case of Krishena Kumar Vs. Union of India and others, reported in 1990(4) SCC, 207. In that case the question was to grant pensionary benefits to the provident fund holders of the Railways. A submission was made if the court feels that a positive direction can not be given to the Government, it was prayed that at least an option should be given to VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.07.17 16:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-465-2008 (O&M) -10- the respondents either to withdraw the benefit of switching over to pension from everyone or give it to the Petitioners as well, so that the discrimination must go. This Court negatived the submission and it was observed as follows:- “We are not inclined to accept of either of these submissions. The PF retirees and Pension retirees having not belong to a Class, there is no discrimination. In the matter of expenditure includible in the annual financial statement this court has to be loath to pass any order or give any direction, because of the division of functions between the three co-equal organs of the Government under the constitution.” “Therefore, in case at this belated stage if similar relief is to be given to the person who have not approached the court that will unnecessarily over burden the Nigam and the Nigam will completely collapse with the liability of payment to these persons in terms of two years salary and increased benefit of pension and other consequential benefits. Therefore, we are not inclined to grant any relief to the persons who have approached the court after their retirement. Only those persons who have filed the writ petitions when they were in service or who have obtained interim order for their retirement, those persons should be allowed to stand to benefit and not others. We have been given a chart of those 9 persons, who filed writ petitions and obtained stay are continuing in service. They are as follows:- 1. Shri Bhagwant Sewak Shukla 2. Shri Vijay Bahadur Rai 3. Shri Girija Shanker 4. Shri Yogendra Prakash Kulshersht 5. Shri Vinod Kumar Ransal 6. Shri Praduman Prashad Mishra 7. Shri Banke Bihari Pandey 8. Shri Yashwant Singh 9. Shri Chandra Shekhar and the following persons filed writ petitions before retirement but no stay order granted:- 1. Shri Gopal Singh Dangwal (W/P No.5384/05 vide order dated 5.5.2005) 2. Shri R.R.Gautam (W/P No.45945/05 vide order dated 15.6.2005). The benefits shall only be confined to above mentioned persons who have filed writ petitions before their retirement or they have obtained interim order before their retirement. The appeals filed against these persons by the Nigam shall fail and the same are dismissed. Rest VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.07.17 16:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-465-2008 (O&M) -11- of the appeals are allowed and orders passed by the High Court are set aside. In the present case, the petitioner has acquiesced in accepting his retirement and did not challenge the same in time. As such he himself is guilty of waiver and acquiescence. Moreover, it has been held in the supra case law at paragraph 13 as under:- “In view of the statement of law (Halsbury’s laws of England-Doctrine of laches), as summarized above the respondents are guilty since the respondents have acquiesced in accepting the retirement and did not challenge the same in time. If they would have been vigilant enough, they could have filed writ petition as others did in the matter. Therefore, whenever it appears that the claimants lost time or while away and did not rise to the occasion in time for filing the writ petitions, then in such cases, the court should be very slow in granting the relief to the incumbent. Secondly, it has also to be taken into consideration the question of acquiescence or waiver on the part of the incumbent whether other parties are going to be prejudiced if the relief is granted. In the present case if the respondents would have challenged their retirement being violative of the provision of the Act, perhaps the Nigam could have taken appropriate steps to raise funds so as to meet the liability but by not asserting their rights the respondents have allowed time to pass and after a lapse of couple of years they have filed writ petition claiming the benefit for two years. That will definitely require the Nigam to raise funds which is going to have serious financial repercussion on the financial management of the Nigam. Why the court should come to the rescue of such persons when they themselves are guilty of waiver and acquiescence. As such the present writ petition is also not maintainable in the present form on Principle of waiver and acquiescence. REPLY ON MERITS:- 1 to 8 XXX XXX XXX XXX 9. That the contents of para No.9 of the writ petition are correct being matter of record. Moreover, the contents of this para mentioned only instructions of the Government. However, it is submitted that since as per Annexure-P3, no change has been made in grouping in A, B, C and D instead of Class-I, II, III and IV employees in the relevant departmental rules i.e. Punjab Subordinate Courts Establishment (Recruitment and General Conditions of Service), Rules 1997. As such, the VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.07.17 16:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-465-2008 (O&M) -12- Annexure-P3 is not applicable in respect of the Petitioner. Moreover, the instructions contained in Anneure-P4 are not applicable in respect of the Petitioner, as the services of the Petitioner were already classified as Class-III employees, as per Punjab Subordinate Courts Establishment (Recruitment and General Conditions of Service), Rules 1997, which were notified into Punjab Government Gazette, March 19, 1999 and the instructions contained in Annexure-P4 were notified only on November 26, 2002, whereby it has been provided that all those categories of employees who were in Class-IV earlier but after the reclassification on the basis of the advice of the 4th Punjab Pay Commission now falls in Group-C by virtue of Higher Pay Scales may be allowed to retired at the age of 60 years. It has further been provided by Annexure P4 that the relaxation in retirement age could be available only to those Class-IV employees who now fall in Group-C and who were recruited in Class-IV prior to the date on which the recommendations of the 4th Punjab Pay Commission were implemented i.e. on 8.9.2000. Since, the service conditions of the petitioner were changed vide Punjab Subordinate Courts Establishment (Recruitment and General Conditions of Service), Rules 1997, wherein the post of Bailiff was classified as Class-III which were published in the Punjab Government Gazette March 19, 1999, as such the instructions contained in Annexure-P4 are not applicable in the case of the Petitioner. 10. That the contents of the Para No.10 of the writ petition are wrong, hence denied. The Rule 2 (f) of Punjab Subordinate Courts Establishment (Recruitment and General Conditions of Service), Rules 1997, reads as under:- “Ministerial servant” means a member of service whose duties are entirely clerical and any other class of service specially defined as such by general or special order by the High Court and shall include members of Class II and III service other than Process Servers and Class IV employees. It is further submitted that the word “Bailiff and Drivers” have been deleted by the Hon’ble High Court vide correction slip dated 25.4.2003, which runs as under:- RULES AND ORDERS OF THE PUNJAB HIGH COURT, VOLUME-1 CHAPTER 18-A AND 18-C. The Rules 2 and 7 of the Punjab/ Haryana/Chandigarh (U.T.) Subordinate Courts Establishment (Recruitment and General Conditions of Service), Rules, 1997 be amended as under:- VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.07.17 16:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-465-2008 (O&M) -13- In Rule 2(f) the words “Bailiffs, Drivers” occurring after the words “other than” and before the words “Process Servers” are deleted. In Rule 7 Sub-rule (ix) is re-numbered as sub-rule (x) and will come after the title Class IV and sub-rule(x) is re- numbered as sub rule(ix). Thus, a perusal of the above shows that the post of Bailiff has not been excluded from Class-III service.” 7. The contention of the petitioner is that as a Bailiff, he was a Class-IV employee and thus, entitled to retire at the age of 60 years. A perusal of the Punjab Subordinate Courts Establishment (Recruitment and General Conditions of Service), Rules, 1997, (wherein a Correction Slip was filed on 05.02.1999), which are applicable to the petitioner, shows that Bailiff is a Class-III post. The service conditions of the petitioner are governed by the Punjab Subordinate Courts Establishment (Recruitment and General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997. These rules were published in the Punjab Government Gazette on March 19, 1999, and substituted the erstwhile Chapter 18, Part-A of the High Court Rules and Orders, Volume-1. Under the 1997 Rules, the post of Bailiff was unequivocally classified as a Class-III post. Rule 7(viii) of the 1997 Rules places the post of Bailiff under the category of Class-III employees. Schedule-I appended to the 1997 Rules also shows the post of Bailiff as a Class-III post with a pay scale of Rs. 3120-5160. After the 1997 Rules came into force w.e.f. 1999, the service conditions, of the petitioner including the age of superannuation, were governed by these rules. The Petitioner never raised any objection or filed any representation against his classification as a Class-ll employee under the new statutory framework. Rule 11 of the 1997 Rules explicitly provides that in respect of matters not expressly provided for in the rules, a member of the VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.07.17 16:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-465-2008 (O&M) -14- service shall be governed by such rules and regulations as are framed by the State Government. The applicable rule framed by the State Government is Rule 3.26(a) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-I, Part-I. This rule provides as under:- “Except as provided in other clauses of this rule, the date of retirement of a Government employee other than a Class IV Government employee, is the date on which he attains the age of 58 years.” Since the petitioner, as a Bailiff, was a Class-III employee under the 1997 Rules, his age of superannuation was correctly determined to be 58 years as per Rule 3.26(a) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules. His retirement on 30.11.2005 upon attaining the age of 58 years was, therefore, completely legal, valid, and in accordance with the service rules. 8. So far as the instructions dated 26.11.2002 (Annexure P-4) relied upon by the petitioner are concerned, these provide a relaxation in the retirement age to 60 years only for those categories of employees who were in Class-IV earlier but were reclassified into Group ‘C’ (Class-III) following the recommendations of the 4th Punjab Pay Commission. This relaxation is not applicable to the Petitioner because the post of Bailiff was already classified as a Class-III post under the statutory 1997 Rules, which came into force on March 19, 1999. The reclassification of the petitioner’s post was not a result of the Pay Commission recommendations implemented on 08.09.2000, but was due to a statutory rule change that occurred much earlier. Therefore, the petitioner does not fall into the specific category of employees for whom the relaxation was intended. VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.07.17 16:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-465-2008 (O&M) -15- 9. In view of the above, the present writ petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit. 10. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE 15.07.2026 Virender Whether speaking/non-speaking : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.07.17 16:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document