CWP-28245-2026 (O&M) 1 of 10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 120 CWP-28245-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 02.09.2026 Hoshiar Singh ...Petitioner(s) Vs. State of Haryana and others ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Ms. Kritika Mandhan, Advocate and Mr. Kulwant Singh Dhanora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Kumar Nain, 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 the issuance of a writ, order or direction especially in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for grant of deemed date promotion to the post of Circle Superintendent w.e.f. 11.04.2007 i.e. the date when the junior to the petitioner namely Shri Sham Lal (Now Retd.)- respondent No.3 was promoted as Circle Superintendent; and to grant him all consequential benefits. 2. Brief sequence of events in chronological order is as follows:– 07.09.1979, 24.11.1995 & 11.04.2007: Respondent No.3 was appointed to post of Accounts Clerk on 07.09.1979; and was promoted as Deputy DIVYANSHI 2026.09.08 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-28245-2026 (O&M) 2 of 10 Superintendent on 24.11.1995; and was again promoted as Circle Superintendent on 11.04.2007. 16.12.2004 & 24.08.2009: The petitioner was appointed as Accounts Clerk on 16.12.2004; and promoted as Deputy Superintendent on 24.08.2009. Grievance of the petitioner is that he has not been promoted as Circle Superintendent. 31.12.2009: Petitioner had retired on 31.12.2009. 16.02.2023: Thereafter, Petitioner submitted a Representation dated 16.02.2023 (Annexure P-2) seeking deemed date of promotion as Accounts Clerk. However, petitioner received no response in this regard. 11.09.2024: As such, petitioner had approached this Court by way of CWP-21542-2024 titled as Hoshiar Singh vs. State of Haryana and others; which came to be disposed of vide order dated 11.09.2024 (Annexure P-3) with direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and take final decision upon the Representation dated 16.02.2023 (Annexure P-2). 13.12.2024: Pursuant to the same, vide order dated 13.12.2024 (Annexure P-4), respondents granted deemed date of promotion to the petitioner. However, out of 3 deemed dates of promotion, only 2 deemed dates of promotion were granted. 31.12.2024: Accordingly, petitioner submitted another Representation dated 31.12.2024 (Annexure P-5). 03.09.2025: As no response was received, the petitioner again filed CWP- 26064-2025 titled as Hoshiar Singh vs. State of Haryana and others; DIVYANSHI 2026.09.08 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-28245-2026 (O&M) 3 of 10 which was disposed of vide order dated 03.09.2025 (Annexure P-6) on the assurance of learned State Counsel that decision will be taken upon Representation dated 31.12.2024 Annexure P-5. 16.10.2025: On 16.10.2025 (Annexure P-7), speaking order was passed with the following observations: “2. Now, after nearly thirty years, the petitioner has re- presented himself for grant of deemed date of promotion to the post of Circle Superintendent w.e.f 11.04.2007 i.e. date when the junior to the petitioner namely Sh. Sham Lal (Now Retd.) was promoted to the post of Circle Superintendent and to grant them all consequential benefits. 3. It is further submitted that after examining the record of petitioner, Sh. Hoshiar Singh found eligible for grant of deemed date of promotion as Accounts Clerk w.e.f. 07.09.1979, Deputy Superintendent from 24.11.1995 and the same has been granted vide this office order No.4689-4700/A-II/NGE-I/2024 dated 13.12.2024. Further case for deemed date promotion to the post of Circle Superintendent w.e.f 11.04.2007 i.e. date when the junior to the petitioner namely Sh. Sham Lal (Now Retd.) was promoted to the post of Circle Superintendent is to be considered at the level of Government for approval in Department Promotion Committee. A case has been sent to Government with the request to kindly fix date, time & venue for consideration of suitability of Deputy Superintendents for promotion to the rank of Circle Superintendent in the meeting of Departmental Promotional Committee and it may take more time to attain finality. As and when the case of deemed date promotion to the post of Circle Superintendent is decided by the Government, the same will be granted to the DIVYANSHI 2026.09.08 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-28245-2026 (O&M) 4 of 10 petitioner and all consequential benefits will also be granted as per law. 4. In view of the above discussion, I have found the representations dated 13.12.2024 (Annexure P-2) suitable and accordingly disposed of the above representation on above terms being devoid of merit, in compliance of Hon'ble High Court order dated 03.09.2025. Communicated a copy to all concerned.” 15.01.2026: Petitioner had then filed the 3rd CWP-562-2026 titled as Hoshiar Singh vs. State of Haryana and others, which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty vide order dated 15.01.2026 (Annexure P-10). 17.08.2026: Hence, present fourth Writ Petition was filed on 17.08.2026. 3. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that private respondent No.3 Sh. Sham Lal is junior to the petitioner and yet has been granted promotion as Circle Superintendent w.e.f. 11.04.2007. Therefore, the petitioner being senior to respondent No.3, is also entitled to promotion as Circle Superintendent from the date when his junior/respondent No.3 was promoted as Circle Superintendent, alongwith all consequential benefits thereto. 4. Ld. counsel also contends that similarly situated retired employees have filed CWP No. 24761 of 2026 titled as Jagdish Chander Chopra and Another Versus State of Haryana and Others before this Court, and in that writ petition, notice of motion has been issued for 03.12.2026, vide order dated 10.08.2026 (Annexure P-11). DIVYANSHI 2026.09.08 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-28245-2026 (O&M) 5 of 10 5. He accordingly prays that the present Writ Petition be allowed; and following prayer be accepted:- “i) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for grant of deemed date promotion to the post of Circle Superintendent w.e.f. 11.04.2007 i.e. the date when the junior to the petitioner namely Shri Sham Lal- (Now Retd.), respondent No.3 was promoted as Circle Superintendent and to grant them all consequential benefits.” 6. Per contra, learned State Counsel appearing on advance notice has vehemently opposed submissions of the petitioner and argued that claim of the petitioner is highly belated. Admittedly, respondent No.3 was promoted as Circle Superintendent in the year 2007. Petitioner raised no objection at that time. As such, present Writ Petition is not maintainable. 7. No other argument has been raised on behalf of learned counsel for the parties. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in the submissions of the petitioner. 8. The factual matrix of the case has already been noted herein above; from which it is evident that petitioner was appointed to the post of Accounts Clerk on 16.12.2004; and promoted as Deputy Superintendent on 24.08.2009. Grievance of the petitioner is that petitioner was due for promotion as Circle Superintendent, however, he was not promoted. Whereas his junior i.e. private respondent No.3 was promoted as Accounts Clerk on 07.09.1979; Deputy Superintendent on DIVYANSHI 2026.09.08 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-28245-2026 (O&M) 6 of 10 24.11.1995; and has also been promoted as Circle Superintendent on 11.04.2007. As such, it is the claim of the petitioner that he is entitled for promotion as Circle Superintendent from the date when his junior was promoted i.e. from 11.04.2007. 9. A bare reading of the above facts itself show that claim of the petitioner is misconceived. It is not clear as to on what basis petitioner is claiming himself to be senior to private respondent No.3 as, as per the own admitted case of the petitioner, respondent No.3 was promoted as Accounts Clerk on 07.09.1979 – whereas petitioner was promoted as Accounts Clerk thereafter on 16.12.2004. Even respondent No.3 was promoted as Deputy Superintendent on 24.11.1995 - whereas petitioner was promoted as Deputy Superintendent on 24.08.2009. Thus, it would appear that the respondent No.3 is senior to the petitioner. 10. Moreover, petitioner has previously filed CWP-562-2026 titled as Hoshiar Singh vs. State of Haryana and others. The present is the 4th Writ Petition by the petitioner on the same cause of action. The last Writ Petition i.e. CWP-562-2026 was dismissed as withdrawn by the petitioner vide order dated 15.01.2026 (Annexure P-10), which reads as follows:- “The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus seeking direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of deemed date promotion to the post of Circle Superintendent w.e.f. 11.04.2007 i.e., the date when the junior to the petitioner namely Shri Sham Lal (now retd.) was promoted. DIVYANSHI 2026.09.08 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-28245-2026 (O&M) 7 of 10 At this stage, learned State counsel informs the Court that the case of the petitioner is under consideration and has been forwarded to the DPC. Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of the present petition with liberty to pursue his case after the decision taken by the Government to hold the DPC. Prayer is accepted. Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty aforesaid.” 11. Petitioner is unable to inform whether DPC has taken any decision on the matter or not. In this situation, present Writ Petition is not maintainable. 12. Petitioner has further claimed parity with the petitioners in CWP-24761-2026 titled as Jagdish Chander Chopra and Another vs. State of Haryana & Others (Annexure P-11). However, the said contention of the petitioner is also incorrect as in the said case, the petitioners therein were claiming arrears in respect of the notional promotion granted to them under orders of the Court. Whereas the issue in the present case is entirely different. 13. Furthermore, claim of the petitioner is barred by delay and laches as the respondent No.3 was promoted as Circle Superintendent as far back as on 11.04.2007; and petitioner himself had retired from service thereafter, on 31.12.2009. At no time during his tenure petitioner raised any objection to the promotion of respondent No.3. It is only now after almost 20 years of the promotion of respondent no.3 that the petitioner is DIVYANSHI 2026.09.08 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-28245-2026 (O&M) 8 of 10 claiming promotion from back date. Such a delayed claim cannot be entertained. 14. The issue of delay stands settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 627984, holding as under: - “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.” The relevant para of the said judgment reads as under:- “23. The legal principles which emerge from the reading of the aforesaid judgments, cited both by the appellants as well as the respondents, can be summed up as under: DIVYANSHI 2026.09.08 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-28245-2026 (O&M) 9 of 10 (1) Normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently. (2) However, this principle is subject to well recognised exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the Court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim. (3) However, this exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the Court was judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the Court or not. With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated person. Such a situation can occur when the subject matter of the decision touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularisation and the like (see K.C. Sharma & Ors. v. Union of DIVYANSHI 2026.09.08 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-28245-2026 (O&M) 10 of 10 India (supra). On the other hand, if the judgment of the Court was in personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the Court and such an intention is stated expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from either laches and delays or acquiescence.” 15. The aforesaid judgment has been followed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in 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.” 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to controvert or dispute the above said factual and legal position. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition stands dismissed. 17. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. 02.09.2026 (NIDHI GUPTA) Divyanshi JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No DIVYANSHI 2026.09.08 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document