Rajinder Singh vs Pepsu Road Transport Corporation And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
220
CWP-19401-2020
Date of decision: 08.09.2026
Rajinder Singh .....Petitioner
Versus
Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and another .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present : Mr. Sunny Singla, Advocate,
Ms. Riti Aggarwal, Advocate,
Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate and
Ms. Kamaljeet Kaur, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Devyani Sharma, Advocate for
Mr. Anil Sharma, Advocate
for the respondents.

NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under
Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of
certiorari for quashing the order dated 20.02.2020 (Annexure P-4), vide
which the claim of the petitioner for grant of ACP benefit has been
rejected, which is contrary to the instructions dated 25.09.1998
(Annexure P-1). Further, a writ of mandamus has been sought for
directing the respondents to revise the pay and pension of the petitioner
after releasing him the 24 years ACP benefit as per instructions dated
25.09.1998 (Annexure P-1), which has been illegally withheld by the
respondents-Corporation, with all consequential benefits along with
interest @ 18% per annum.
VINAY
2026.09.10 17:09
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-19401-2020 -2-
2. Briefly stated, the undisputed facts of the case are that the
petitioner was appointed as a Conductor on 05.12.1977 and retired as
such on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2008. Further, the
claim raised by the petitioner in the present petition is for grant of ACP
benefit upon completion of 24 years of service, under the ACP Scheme
dated 25.09.1998. However, the petitioner raised the said claim only
after a lapse of 11 years from his retirement by serving a legal notice
dated 15.01.2019 (Annexure P-2). Thereafter, he approached this Court
by way of filing CWP No.32919 of 2019 titled as 'Rajinder Singh v.
Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and another' , which came up for
hearing on 15.11.2019 and the same was disposed of by passing the
following order:-
“The claim in the present writ petition is that the
petitioner was entitled for the grant of ACP on completion
of 24 years of service, which the petitioner completed in
December, 2001.
The petitioner has already retired from service in
May, 2008 and the present writ petition has been filed
after more than 11 years of his retirement. Further, no
justification has been given as to why the petitioner did not
raise the claim with regard to the non-releasing of the
ACP after rendering 24 years of service in the year 2001,
while in service.
Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner
will not claim any arrears upto the date of the filing of the
legal notice i.e. 15.01.2019, in case the respondents
consider the case of the petitioner for the grant of the said
benefits.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that for the
relief which has been claimed in the present writ petition,
the petitioner has served the respondents with a legal
notice dated 15.01.2019 (Annexure P-2) which is still
pending consideration with the respondents and the
petitioner will be satisfied, at this stage, in case a time
bound direction is issued to the respondents to decide the
said legal notice by passing an appropriate speaking
order.
VINAY
2026.09.10 17:09
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-19401-2020 -3-
Without commenting upon the merits of the case or
about the entitlement of the petitioner for the relief, which
has been claimed by him in the legal notice dated
15.01.2019 (Annexure P-2), the present writ petition is
disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide
the legal notice dated 15.01.2019 (Annexure P-2), within a
period of three months from the receipt of certified copy of
this order.
In case, the petitioner is found entitled for the relief,
the arrears will be restricted only from the date of the
serving of legal notice i.e. 15.01.2019.”
3. In pursuance to the above-said directions, the claim of the
petitioner was considered by the respondents and rejected, vide order
dated 20.02.2020 (Annexure P-4), by giving the following reasons:-
“xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
As per the Punjab Government Circular no.7/37/98-
5PP1/12581, dated 25/09/1998 for placement in higher
scale under Assured Career Progression Scheme the
overall service record of an employee should be good i.e.
50% of reports should be good and above including at
least two of last three reports. The petitioner was granted
8 years step up proficiency on 01.12.1987 and the second
proficiency step up after completion of 16 years service
under the Assured Career Progression scheme was
extended on 14.01.2004 in compliance of the said
instructions. Accordingly the third proficiency after
completion of 24 years of service under the Assured
Career Progression scheme of petitioner fell due on
14.01.2012 but the petitioner got retired from the service
of PRTC on 31.05.2008 after attaining the age of
superannuation as such the petitioner is not entitled for
the benefits of third step up Proficiency under Assured
Career Progression Scheme (24 years) w.e.f. 05.12.2001.”
4. On the other hand, the respondent-Corporation, while
controverting the claim of the petitioner, has filed its written statement
wherein, in paras 5 to 8 thereof, following stand has been taken:-
“5. That the petitioner is claiming proficiency step up
increment under the ACP Scheme on completion of 24
years of service. The petitioner was earlier inadvertently
granted the increment on completion of 8 years of service
on 01.12.1987 and was not entitled for the same, the
VINAY
2026.09.10 17:09
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-19401-2020 -4-
reason being, as per Punjab Government Circular No.
7/37/98-5PP1/12581, dated 25.09.1998 for placement in
higher scale under Assured Career Progression Scheme
the overall service record of an employee should be good
i.e. 50% of reports should be good and above including at
least two of last three reports. In the present case, as per
the service record of the petitioner, the ACR's with effect
from 1978-79 up to 1993-1994 was the average and as
such, was not entitled for ACP on completion of 8 years of
service as on 01.12.1987. Even as per the records, 1
increment of the petitioner was stopped with cumulative
effect.
Thereafter, the petitioner was granted increment on
completion of 16 years of service on 14.01.2004 when the
service period is counted w.e.f 01.12.1987. The petitioner
has raised any dispute with the aforesaid period of release
of increment on completion of 08 and 16 years of service.
6. That the petitioner is not entitled for the increment on
completion of 24 years of service as the petitioner retired
on 31.05.2008 and whereas the said increment was due on
14.01.2012.
7. That the petitioner has not challenged or raised any
grievance with regard to the grant of increments on
completion of 08 and 16 years of service as granted by the
corporation on the relevant dates. So, the period for grant
of increment on completion of 24 years of service is to be
counted accordingly. The petitioner is not entitled for the
increment on completion of 24 years of service as the
petitioner retired on 31.05.2008 and whereas the said
increment was due on 14.01.2012.
8. That even otherwise the writ petition is liable to be
dismissed on the ground of delay as the petitioner retired
on 31.05.2008 and the present writ petition has been filed
in the year 2020. Prior to that legal notice was served on
15.01.2019 and the earlier writ petition was filed after a
delay of 11 years.”
5. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed replication to the written
statement filed by the respondents.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
rd
petitioner was entitled for grant of 3 ACP on completion of 24 years
of service on 05.12.2001 and, therefore, action of the respondents in not
granting the same is totally illegal and arbitrary and the respondents
VINAY
may be directed to grant the same with effect from 05.12.2001, when it
2026.09.10 17:09
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-19401-2020 -5-
became due.
7. Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents submits
that as per the instructions dated 25.09.1998 for placing in higher scale
under the ACP Scheme, the overall service record of an employee
should be good, i.e., 50% of reports should be good and above,
including at least last two of last three reports. It is further submitted
that the petitioner was granted first step up on 01.12.1987 on
completion of 08 years of service and second step up on completion of
rd
16 years of service on 14.01.2004. Accordingly, the 3 ACP, upon
completion of 24 years of service, fell due on 14.01.2012, whereas the
petitioner had already retired on 31.05.2008. She further submits that
st nd
when the 1 and 2 ACP were granted to the petitioner with effect from
01.12.1987 and 14.01.2004, the petitioner never raised any objection
for claiming the said benefit from the earlier dates.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
9. The facts are not in dispute that the petitioner initially
st
joined as Conductor on 05.12.1977 and was granted 1 ACP on
nd
completion of 08 years of service on 01.12.1987 and 2 ACP on
completion of 16 years of service on 14.01.2004. Consequently, in
rd
terms of instructions dated 25.09.1998, the 3 ACP was to become due
on 14.01.2012. However, by that time, the petitioner had already retired
from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2008.
While the petitioner was in service, he never raised any claim for grant
st nd
of 1 and 2 ACP with effect from the earlier dates nor claimed the
rd
benefit of 3 ACP. It was only after a lapse of about 11 years from his
VINAY
2026.09.10 17:09
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-19401-2020 -6-
date of retirement, the petitioner, for the first time, served a legal notice
dated 15.01.2019 through his counsel (Annexure P-2), claiming the said
rd
benefit of 3 ACP. Since the petitioner never raised any grievance with
st nd
regard to his claim for grant of 1 and 2 ACP from earlier date(s) nor
rd
he claimed the 3 ACP while he was in service, therefore, he cannot be
allowed to raise the said issue after his retirement, particularly when the
rd
3 ACP was never due to him before his retirement.
10. Even otherwise, the petitioner sought to raise the aforesaid
claim only after a lapse of about 11 years from the date of his
retirement, without furnishing any explanation for such prolonged
delay. Merely, because the respondents subsequently considered and
rejected the claim pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in
CWP No.32919 of 2019, would not take away the effect of such delay.
A stale claim does not get a fresh lease of life merely on its
consideration by the competent authority.
11. Keeping in view the above, finding no merit in the present
petition, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
08.09.2026 ( NAMIT KUMAR )
Vinay JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
VINAY
2026.09.10 17:09
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment