Wrong Pay Fixation Is Not a Continuing Wrong After Retirement; Delayed ACP Claims Barred by Laches: Punjab & Haryana HC

Case Name: Smt. Anita Yadav v. State of Haryana and Others

Date of Judgment: 14 July 2026

Citation: CWP-21007-2026

Bench: Justice Harpreet Singh Brar

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a claim relating to incorrect pay fixation or non-grant of Assured Career Progression (ACP) benefits ceases to constitute a continuing wrong once an employee retires from service. While an incorrect pay fixation may give rise to a recurring cause of action during the subsistence of the employer-employee relationship, such a cause of action does not survive after retirement.

The Court further held that stale service claims raised after an inordinate and unexplained delay are liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches. The extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to revive claims that attained finality long after cessation of service, particularly where no exceptional circumstances have been pleaded or established.

Summary: The petitioner sought a writ directing the State to grant the benefit of the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme along with consequential arrears and interest, contending that despite rendering more than twenty-six years of service as a Science Mistress, she had not been granted even a single ACP benefit. She relied upon the Haryana Civil Services (Assured Career Progression) Rules, 2016 and also referred to a recommendation made by the Principal in 2014 supporting her claim.

The petitioner submitted that she was initially appointed on an ad hoc basis in 1986, her services were regularised with effect from 1 January 1991, and she voluntarily retired from service on 21 January 2013. She further argued that no departmental or disciplinary proceedings were pending at the time of her retirement and that the respondents failed to decide her legal notice issued in April 2026 seeking release of ACP benefits.

The State opposed the petition on the ground that it was hopelessly barred by delay and laches. It pointed out that throughout her service career the petitioner had never raised any grievance regarding denial of ACP benefits and sought to reopen her pay fixation only after more than thirteen years of retirement.

The High Court accepted the objection relating to delay. It observed that the petitioner had admittedly never questioned the non-grant of ACP benefits while she remained in service and had asserted her claim for the first time only through a legal notice dated 22 April 2026, long after voluntarily retiring from service.

Relying upon the decision in Prem Nath v. State of Punjab, the Court reiterated that the principle of continuing wrong in matters of pay fixation is confined to the period during which an employee remains in service. During service, every monthly salary paid on the basis of an incorrect pay fixation may constitute a recurring cause of action. However, once the employer-employee relationship comes to an end, no recurring or continuing cause survives that would justify invoking the writ jurisdiction after prolonged delay.

The Court further observed that the petitioner neither pleaded nor established any exceptional circumstance warranting interference despite the inordinate delay. It emphasised that Article 226 confers an equitable and discretionary jurisdiction, which cannot be exercised to revive stale claims merely because similar benefits may have been granted to other employees. Entertaining such belated claims would defeat the settled principles governing delay and laches and disturb matters that have already attained finality.

Decision: The writ petition was dismissed. The High Court held that the petitioner’s claim for ACP benefits, raised more than thirteen years after voluntary retirement, was hopelessly barred by delay and laches. It further held that non-grant of ACP benefits or incorrect pay fixation does not constitute a continuing wrong after cessation of service and, therefore, no writ could be issued in the absence of any exceptional circumstances.