107 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT MEHAR CHAND STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Present: None f * SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA 1. The present LPA has been preferred order dated the Writ Petition bearing CWP 2. We find that the present delay of 522 days one had appeared before the Court has appeared has been circulated 3. We 4. We Single Bench has who retired way back in 2009 claiming a high 5. Learned Single Bench under:- find that there is no merit in the writ petition and the same deserved to be dismissed being highly belated. It is an admitted IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 2 MEHAR CHAND V STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA None for the applicant-appellant. **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) The present LPA has been preferred order dated 22.03.2023,whereby the learned Single Bench has dismissed Writ Petition bearing CWP No.3542 of 2023 filed by the We find that the present LPA was filed 522 days in filing. On the last date appeared before the Court to argue this case has appeared for the appellant and a written request for an adjournment has been circulated on his behalf. We, however, reject the written request We have noticed the facts of th Single Bench has dismissed the Writ Petition who retired way back in 2009, preferred a Writ Petition in the year 2023 higher pay scale. Learned Single Bench in the impugned order has “4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and find that there is no merit in the writ petition and the same deserved to be dismissed being highly belated. It is an admitted IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA-2484-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 24th of March, 2025 ..…...Appellant(s) V/s. .....Respondent(s) SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA . The present LPA has been preferred by the appellant assailing whereby the learned Single Bench has dismissed 2023 filed by the appellant. was filed in the year 2024 with . On the last date of hearing i.e. 16.12.2024, no to argue this case. Today also, no one written request for an adjournment request seeking adjournment. have noticed the facts of this case and find that learned dismissed the Writ Petition wherein a retired employee, preferred a Writ Petition in the year 2023 in the impugned order has noticed as . I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and find that there is no merit in the writ petition and the same deserved to be dismissed being highly belated. It is an admitted Suresh Kumar 2025.04.01 09:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-2484-2024 (O&M) fact retirement, all retiral benefits were duly released to him. It cannot be the case of the petitioner that he was unaware of what his salary was at the time when he retired and on the basis of which, t the petitioner had been stopped as far back as in the year 1992, even at that point in time, he would have become aware of the disparity in his pay scale. The increments were stopped on account the faced. At the relevant time, the petitioner did not choose to raise any objection that his salary and retiral benefits, as due to him, have not been calculated correctly. It is for the first time in the year 2022, that the writ petition filed claiming reduction in pay scale. The petitioner cannot plead ignorance especially when he accepted all the retiral benefits. He ought to have approached the appropriate authority at the relevant time for his grievanc and if not satisfied, then to the higher forum. He slept over the matter for such a long time. He was even supplied all documents under the RTI Act in 2018 and still slept over the matter for a long. There is also no mention in the writ petition that he necessary knowledge about the stoppage of two increments, which also becomes a ground to dismiss the writ petition for concealment of facts. One must be aware of his rights. The claim of the petitioner being highly belated, the writ petition cannot entertained at this stage. 6. T Single Bench was not maintained for more than 1½ years and no cogent reasons are coming forward for fili It is to be noticed that the through out. 7. Accordingly, the present well as on delay and latches 2024 (O&M) fact that the petitioner retired in the year 2009 and on his retirement, all retiral benefits were duly released to him. It cannot be the case of the petitioner that he was unaware of what his salary was at the time when he retired and on the basis of which, the retiral benefits were calculated. If the increments of the petitioner had been stopped as far back as in the year 1992, even at that point in time, he would have become aware of the disparity in his pay scale. The increments were stopped on account the departmental inquiry, which the petitioner must have faced. At the relevant time, the petitioner did not choose to raise any objection that his salary and retiral benefits, as due to him, have not been calculated correctly. It is for the first time in the year 2022, that the writ petition filed claiming reduction in pay scale. The petitioner cannot plead ignorance especially when he accepted all the retiral benefits. He ought to have approached the appropriate authority at the relevant time for his grievanc and if not satisfied, then to the higher forum. He slept over the matter for such a long time. He was even supplied all documents under the RTI Act in 2018 and still slept over the matter for a long. There is also no mention in the writ petition that he necessary knowledge about the stoppage of two increments, which also becomes a ground to dismiss the writ petition for concealment of facts. One must be aware of his rights. The claim of the petitioner being highly belated, the writ petition cannot entertained at this stage.” Thereafter, the challenge to the order passed by the learned Single Bench was not maintained for more than 1½ years and no cogent coming forward for filing of this It is to be noticed that the appellant-Writ Petitioner has been lazy all Accordingly, the present LPA stands delay and latches. that the petitioner retired in the year 2009 and on his retirement, all retiral benefits were duly released to him. It cannot be the case of the petitioner that he was unaware of what his salary was at the time when he retired and on the basis of he retiral benefits were calculated. If the increments of the petitioner had been stopped as far back as in the year 1992, even at that point in time, he would have become aware of the disparity in his pay scale. The increments were stopped on departmental inquiry, which the petitioner must have faced. At the relevant time, the petitioner did not choose to raise any objection that his salary and retiral benefits, as due to him, have not been calculated correctly. It is for the first time in the year 2022, that the writ petition filed claiming reduction in pay scale. The petitioner cannot plead ignorance especially when he accepted all the retiral benefits. He ought to have approached the appropriate authority at the relevant time for his grievance and if not satisfied, then to the higher forum. He slept over the matter for such a long time. He was even supplied all documents under the RTI Act in 2018 and still slept over the matter for a long. There is also no mention in the writ petition that he had the necessary knowledge about the stoppage of two increments, which also becomes a ground to dismiss the writ petition for concealment of facts. One must be aware of his rights. The claim of the petitioner being highly belated, the writ petition cannot be the challenge to the order passed by the learned Single Bench was not maintained for more than 1½ years and no cogent of this LPA after such a gross delay. Writ Petitioner has been lazy all LPA stands dismissed on merits as Suresh Kumar 2025.04.01 09:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-2484-2024 (O&M) 8. All pending applications in this accordingly. March 24, 2025 Ess Kay Whether speaking / reasoned Whether Reportable 2024 (O&M) All pending applications in this accordingly. [SANJEEV [MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA , 2025 Whether speaking / reasoned : Whether Reportable : All pending applications in this caseare disposed of SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA] JUDGE [MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA] JUDGE : Yes / No : Yes / No Suresh Kumar 2025.04.01 09:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document