CWP-24319-2025 -1- 108 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-24319-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.08.2025 Sarla Devi ... Petitioner Vs. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Patiala and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Gurnam Singh, Advocate and Mr. A.P. Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. ******* HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) 1. Present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to regularize the services of husband of the petitioner w.e.f. 15.01.2021 and 01.11.2022, from which services of his juniors were regularized and to grant promotional scale on completion of 9/16/23 years of service along with all consequential benefits. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that husband of the petitioner joined the respondent-Corporation (erstwhile Punjab VISHNU 2025.08.29 15:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-24319-2025 -2- State Electricity Board) on 01.04.1976 as Work-Charge T-Mate and was posted at Guru Nanak Dev Thermal Plant, Bathinda. Thereafter, he availed promotion and unfortunately, he expired on 24.09.1996, while in service. The grievance of the petitioner is with regard to revision of pay scale of her deceased husband at par with similarly situated employees, whose services were regularized in the year 1999, though in different batches and their deemed date of regularization was from 31.08.1992 and consequential benefits were also released to them in terms of the judgment dated 03.12.2019 passed in CWP-18782-1995. Further, on 15.01.2021 and 12.07.2022, services of five employees, who were junior to the husband of the petitioner, were regularized w.e.f. 31.08.1992. As such, husband of the petitioner is also entitled to the same relief. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon an order dated 12.05.2022 passed in CWP-10056-2022 titled as ‘Daljit Singh Vs. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and others’, vide which a direction was issued to the respondent-Corporation to decide the representation submitted by the petitioner therein. 3. At this stage, Mr. Nagesh Paul, Advocate for Mr. Pratap Singh Gill, Advocate appears on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 and files Memorandum of Appearance in the Court today, which is taken on record. Registry is directed to tag the same at the appropriate place of the case file. He submits that claim of the petitioner cannot be considered after an VISHNU 2025.08.29 15:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-24319-2025 -3- inordinate delay of more than 02 decades. Further, reliance of the petitioner on the judgment dated 03.12.2019 passed in CWP-18782-1995 filed by similarly situated employees, is totally misconceived, as the petitioner(s) in the said writ petition had approached this Court well within time, in the year 1995. As such, claim of the petitioner is time barred. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3 at length and perused the record of the case with their able assistance. 5. From perusal of the record, it transpires that husband of the petitioner joined the respondent-Corporation (erstwhile Punjab State Electricity Board) on 01.04.1976 and died in the year 1996 while he was in service. Further, similarly situated employees of husband of the petitioner had approached this Court in the year 1995 and they had been granted the benefit of regularization. However, the petitioner could not give any satisfactory and sufficient reason to justify the delay in approaching this Court at this belated stage. As such, case of the petitioner suffers from delay and laches. 6. It is trite law that 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, VISHNU 2025.08.29 15:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-24319-2025 -4- which prevented her from approaching this Court for such a long time. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment rendered by a three- Judge 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 32 or 226 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 with 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) VISHNU 2025.08.29 15:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-24319-2025 -5- 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 reasoned enough to dismiss a petition as indolent litigants ought not to be encouraged by writ Courts. In State of Uttaranchal Vs. 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 issue(s) alive. A stale or a dead issue/dispute cannot be 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 is well settled that law leans in favour of those, who are alert and vigilant. 8. In view of the discussion above, this Court does not find any VISHNU 2025.08.29 15:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-24319-2025 -6- merit in the present petition to exercise the extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed. 9. All the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. [ HARPREET SINGH BRAR ] 22.08.2025 JUDGE vishnu Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No VISHNU 2025.08.29 15:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh