Balwan Singh vs State Of Haryana And Ors

CWP-31119-2026 (O&M) 1 of 7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
114 CWP-31119-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision: 11.11.2026
Balwan Singh ...Petitioner(s)
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Mr. .Balwan Singh, Advocate with
Mr. Sunny Tyagi, 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 issuance of a writ
especially in the nature of Certiorari for setting aside the impugned order
dated 02.05.2024 passed by respondent No.3 (Annexure P-1), being
arbitrary, unjust and against the law; AND Further issuance of writ in the
nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the status of clerk
to the petitioner with effect from 19.10.2000 along with all consequential
benefit of seniority & arrears.
2. It is inter alia submitted by ld. Counsel for the petitioner that
petitioner was first appointed as Mali cum Chowkidar (MCC) vide order
dated 18.10.1984 (Annexure P-3). Vide order dated 15.12.1993 (Annexure
DIVYANSHI
P-4), services of the petitioner were regularized w.e.f. 01.04.1993.
2026.11.13 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-31119-2026 (O&M) 2 of 7
3. Ld. Counsel submits that although petitioner had been
appointed as MCC however, he was made to perform clerical duty as is
evident from order dated 19.10.2000 (Annexure P-6); whereby petitioner
was assigned duty of Typist and Clerk against post of Clerk lying vacant.
Thereafter, petitioner had passed the 10 minutes type test on 10.08.2010;
and vide result dated 19.08.2010 (Annexure P-7), petitioner was declared
pass in the Hindi Type Test. Consequentially, petitioner was promoted as
Clerk vide order dated 31.12.2013 (Annexure P-8).
4. Ld. Counsel submits that grievance of the petitioner is that
although petitioner was holding post of MCC, however, work of clerk has
been taken from petitioner as evident from order dated 19.10.2000
(Annexure P-6). As such, services of the petitioner should be counted as
clerk from 19.10.2000 (Annexure P-6); whereby petitioner was assigned
duty of Typist and Clerk. In this regard, petitioner had submitted a
Representation dated 08.01.2024; which has been rejected vide impugned
order dated 02.05.2024 (Annexure P-1).
5. It is accordingly prayed that present Writ Petition be allowed;
and following prayers be accepted: -
“i) issuance of a writ especially in the nature of Certiorari for
setting aside the impugned order dated 02.05.2024 passed by
respondent No.3 (Annexure P-1), being arbitrary, unjust and
against the law;
ii) Further issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondents to grant the status of clerk to the
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.13 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-31119-2026 (O&M) 3 of 7
petitioner with effect from 19.10.2000 along with all
consequential benefit of seniority & arrears.”
6. Per contra, learned State Counsel appearing on advance
notice has opposed submissions of the petitioner and has pointed out that
the present Writ Petition suffers from delay and laches. Moreover, post of
Clerk is a promotional post to which the petitioner has been duly
promoted on passing of type test on 31.12.2013. Ld. State Counsel
further submits that vide order dated 19.10.2000 (Annexure P-6),
petitioner had only been assigned duty of Clerk to assist the Head Clerk.
As such, there is no merit to the present Writ Petition and the same
deserves to be dismissed.
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 sole basis to the claim of the petitioner is order dated
19.10.2000 (Annexure P-6); whereby petitioner had been assigned duty of
Typist and Clerk. However, it is not disputed by the petitioner that
petitioner had been given duty as Clerk vide order dated 19.10.2000
(Annexure P-6), only to assist the Head Clerk. It is also not disputed that
petitioner had not raised any objection at the time neither in writing nor
orally. During all this time, at no stage, has the petitioner objected to the
assigning of work other than that of MCC. The above conduct of the
petitioner shows that petitioner has acquiesced to the assigned work of
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.13 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-31119-2026 (O&M) 4 of 7
Clerk. As such, petitioner cannot raise any objection or claim any benefit
at this belated stage.
9. Furthermore, impugned order categorically records that
petitioner was assigned work as Clerk as administrative exigency only to
ensure smooth running of the work. Further, perusal of the impugned
order shows that petitioner has obtained all benefits pertaining to the
post of MCC like ACP, crossing of efficiency bar, by claiming that he has
been working as MCC.
10. It is also undisputed that post of Clerk is a promotional post
for which the petitioner by his own saying, has passed Type Test only on
19.08.2010; whereafter petitioner has been promoted as Clerk vide order
dated 31.12.2013 (Annexure P-8). The said promotion is as per the
provisions of Haryana Development and Panchayat Department (Group C)
Field Offices Service Rules 2012 (Annexure P-9).
11. On a Court query, ld. Counsel for the petitioner has admitted
that petitioner has now retired on 30.06.2024. Clearly, therefore, claim of
the petitioner is barred by delay and laches. Even no reason, let alone any
cogent reason whatsoever is forthcoming from the Writ Petition to explain
the said huge delay in approaching this Court. Thus, claim of the
petitioner is not maintainable at this stage.
12. The issue of delay and acquiescence 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: -
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.13 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-31119-2026 (O&M) 5 of 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.”
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:
(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
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.13 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-31119-2026 (O&M) 6 of 7
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
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
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.13 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-31119-2026 (O&M) 7 of 7
judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their
petition does not suffer from either laches and delays or
acquiescence.”
13. 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.”
14. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner is unable to controvert or
dispute the above said factual and legal position.
15. Consequentially, I find no merit in the present Writ Petition
and the same stands dismissed .
16. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.
11.11.2026 (NIDHI GUPTA)
Divyanshi
JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.13 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document