IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 220 CWP-18465-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 07.07.2026 Arun Kumar … Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Shubham Saroha, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Teevar Sharma, D.A.G. Haryana. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. Present Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing of letter dated 11.06.2018 (Annexure P-5) vide which service of the petitioner has been counted for the purpose of Gratuity and Pension and for granting the benefits of service for the period w.e.f. 31.12.1990 to 26.03.1996 for the purpose of ITI scale, Notional fixation of pay with Annual Increments, ACP, Pension, Gratuity, Leave Encashment etc. with all retiral benefits. 2. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as Helper Radiator Repair (HRR) vide order dated AMIT KHANCHI 2026.07.08 15:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order CWP-18465-2024 (O&M) - 2 - 08.05.1990 (Annexure P-1). Services of the petitioner were terminated by the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Kurukshetra vide order dated 31.12.1990. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the Labour Court. Vide Award dated 16.03.1996 (Annexure P-2) the reference was disposed of as the parties had amicably settled their disputes in Lok Adalat. In view of the settlement between the parties, the petitioner was reinstated vide order dated 08.04.1996 (Annexure P-3) and was ordered to be retained in his old seniority in his cadre. However, it was stated that he will not be entitled to anything for the period that he remained terminated or out of job. Learned counsel submits that thereafter, the petitioner had made numerous representations to the respondents including representation dated 27.04.2018 (Annexure P-4) stating therein that once the petitioner had been reinstated with continuity in service and seniority, then the period of termination has to be counted/treated for the purpose of grant of Annual Increment, ACP etc.; and said period was to be counted toward his length of service etc. for all his retiral benefits. However, vide letter dated 11.06.2018 (Annexure P-5), the General Manager, Haryana Roadway, Kurukshetra rejected claim of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates that once the petitioner had been reinstated with continuity in service and seniority then the said period has to be counted for the purpose of grant of Annual Increment, ACP, ITI Scale etc.; and the said period is also to be counted towards his length of service etc. and for all his retiral benefits. AMIT KHANCHI 2026.07.08 15:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order CWP-18465-2024 (O&M) - 3 - 4. It is pointed out that the petitioner, along with several other similar persons had also filed a CWP-7156-2012 which was disposed of without going into the merits of the matter vide order dated 20.04.2012 (Annexure P-9) with liberty to the petitioner to file a detailed representation within two weeks which was to be decided by respondent No.3 within three months thereafter. 5. Learned counsel submits that pursuant thereto the respondent had passed impugned order dated 11.6.2018, vide which services of the petitioner w.e.f. 31.12.1990 to 26.03.1996 has been counted only for the purpose of grant of Gratuity and Pension. It is submitted that the grievance of the petitioner is that he has been retired on 31.03.2023 and on his retirement the period from 31.12.1990 to 26.03.1996 has not been counted for any retiral benefits, ACP etc. It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed on 08.05.1990 and retired on 31.03.2023, still as per his pension payment orders, his net qualifying service is shown as 27 years, 7 months and 27 days despite the orders passed by the Labour Court. It is accordingly prayed that the present petition be allowed and a writ of certiorari be issued quashing letter dated 11.06.2018. 6. Per contra learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and contends that in compliance of order dated 20.04.2012 (Annexure P-9), the respondents had duly passed an order dated 25.09.2012 (Annexure P-10) which has not been challenged by the petitioner. It is pointed out that even as per the Labour Court Award (Annexure P-2), petitioner was reinstated with continuity of service, however, AMIT KHANCHI 2026.07.08 15:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order CWP-18465-2024 (O&M) - 4 - without back wages. Accordingly, the present writ petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 7. No other argument is made on behalf of learned counsel for the parties. I have heard ld. counsel and perused the case file and record in detail. 8. I find no merit in the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. Claim of the petitioner for grant of ITI scale, Notional fixation of pay with Annual Increments, ACP, Pension, Gratuity, Leave Encashment etc. with all retiral benefits and the arrears is based on the ground that vide the Award dated 16.03.1996 (Annexure P-2), the Labour Court had granted continuity of service to the petitioner. A perusal of Annexure P-2 reveals that the reference filed by the petitioner was disposed of on the basis of amicable settlement arrived at between the parties before the Lok Adalat on 16.03.1996. Statements of the parties were duly recorded which are as follows: “Statement of Sh. R Nath, Workman's representative - I have no objection to settle this case provided the workman is reinstated with continuity of service. I am not claim any backwages. Statement of Sh. Hari Om Siwach, GM, HR Kurukshetra- I have heard the statement. The workman will be reinstated within 15 days from today. In view of the statements made by the parties, the reference stands disposed of as fully settled. The parties shall be bound by the statement made in the court which shall form part of this award.” AMIT KHANCHI 2026.07.08 15:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order CWP-18465-2024 (O&M) - 5 - 9. A bare reading of the above shows that in the first instance, the Labour Court has not reinstated the petitioner with continuity of service. The unilateral statement made by the petitioner that he be reinstated with continuity of service, was not affirmed by the representative of the Management or by the learned Tribunal. Clearly, therefore, no continuity of service was awarded by the Labour Court. 10. Even further, petitioner has made a clear statement that he will not claim any back wages for the out of service period from 31.12.1990 up to 26.3.1996. As such, petitioner cannot now claim all consequential benefits of reinstatement. The petitioner cannot make the said claim, especially at this belated stage. It is to be noted that after passing off the Award dated 16.3.1996, the petitioner had remained silent for a period of almost sixteen years upto 2012, when he had filed the CWP-7156-2012 titled as Dharmpal and others vs. State of Haryana and others praying therein for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to give the petitioners the pay scales as given to similarly situated employees performing the same nature of duties on the principle of equal pay for equal work. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 20.04.2012 (Annexure P-9). 11. It is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to order dated 20.04.2012 (Annexure P-9), the respondents had duly passed order dated 25.09.2012 (Annexure P-10) and had granted revised pay w.e.f. 06.08.1998 from Rs.1200-2040 to Rs.4000-6000 after three years of experience from the date AMIT KHANCHI 2026.07.08 15:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order CWP-18465-2024 (O&M) - 6 - i.e. 09.05.1990 (he remained out of service w.e.f. 31.12.1990 to 26.03.1996 after completion of three years experience of service as helper) vide order No.4629- 33/ECW dated 24.08.2012, to the petitioner. 12. Admittedly, order dated 25.09.2012 (Annexure P-10) has not been challenged by the petitioner at any stage. 13. The record further reveals that the petitioner had subsequently also made a representation dated 27.04.2018; which was decided by respondent No.3 vide impugned memo dated 11.06.2018 (Annexure R-3) which reads as follows: “Subject: Granting the benefit of continuity of service w.e.f. 09.05.1990. With reference to your application dated 20.12.2017 in Office Diary No.3751 dated 21.12.2017 and dated 27.04.2018 in Office Diary No. 1445 dated 30.04.2018 on the subject cited above. You are informed that your services were terminated with immediate effect by this office vide memo no. 4307/ECW dated 31.12.1990 and according to order dated 16.03.1996 passed by Hon'ble Labour Court, Ambala he was reinstated in service on the basis of "continuity of Service and I am not claiming any back wages". Therefore, the period of remained out of service from 31.12.1990 to 26.03.1996 is counted only for the benefit of gratuity and pension.” 14. Accordingly, since petitioner was reinstated with continuity of service but without back wages, thus, the period for which petitioner remained out of service from 31.12.1990 up to 26.3.1996 was rightly counted only for benefit of gratuity and pension. 15. Moreover, claim of the petitioner is also liable to be rejected on ground of delay. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 627984, has held as under: - AMIT KHANCHI 2026.07.08 15:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order CWP-18465-2024 (O&M) - 7 - “A. Constitution of India, Article 14 - Equality - Extending the benefit of judgments to similar situated persons (fence sitters) - Normal rule is that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently - This rule is subject to well recognised exceptions in the form of latches and delay as well as acquiescence - Same would be valid ground to dismiss claim - Exception is inapplicable in cases where judgment pronounced by Court is judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the Court or not. B. Constitution of India, Articles 14, 16 and 226 - Appointment - Cancellation of appointment - Challenged - Delay and latches - Acquiescence - Cancellation challenged after nine years when some of similarly situated aggrieved persons got relief from Court - Unexplained delay and latches in filing the claim petition after period of 9 years - Totally unjust to give appointment after a period of 27 years - Order of High Court allowing claim of appellant set aside.” 16. The above view has been followed by this Court in case of Sudhir Bala v. State of Punjab, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2678248, decided on 11.12.2024; wherein it is held that “Delay and laches in filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can disentitle a petitioner to relief, especially when there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in asserting one's rights.” Thus, at this belated stage, the petitioner cannot claim benefit of service for the period w.e.f 31.12.1990 to 26.03.1996 for the purpose of ITI Scale of Rs.4000-6000, Notional fixation of pay with Annual Increments, ACP, Pension, Gratuity, Leave Encashment etc. or any other retiral benefits and arrears. AMIT KHANCHI 2026.07.08 15:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order CWP-18465-2024 (O&M) - 8 - 17. In view of the above, the instant Civil Writ petition stands dismissed. 18. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) 07.07.2026 JUDGE N Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No AMIT KHANCHI 2026.07.08 15:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order