Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Pension Re-Fixation Plea Filed After Nearly 20 Years; Holds Stale Claims Cannot Be Revived by Fresh Representations

Case Name: Balbir Singh Makkar vs. State of Punjab & Others
Date of Judgment: 02 December 2025
Citation: CWP-35756-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking re-fixation of pension on the basis of a higher pay scale attached to the post of Superintendent, holding that the claim was hopelessly barred by delay and laches. The Court held that once an employee retires, wrong pay fixation cannot be treated as a continuing wrong and that repeated representations do not revive a dead cause of action.

Summary: The petitioner, appointed in 1975 and promoted to Superintendent in 2005, retired in 2006. He claimed that although he worked as Superintendent until retirement, he was denied the financial benefits of the higher post because the departmental audit was not completed in time. Nearly two decades later, in May 2025, he submitted a representation seeking re-fixation of pension and consequential benefits.

The State opposed the plea on the ground that the cause of action arose in 2005–2006 and that the petitioner had offered no explanation for approaching the Court after twenty years. The High Court agreed, holding that Article 226 jurisdiction cannot be invoked to resurrect stale claims. Relying on Ram Gopal, Mrinmoy Maity, Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari, M.K. Sarkar, and M.R. Gupta, the Court reiterated that while pay-fixation disputes may constitute a continuing wrong during service, the doctrine ceases to apply after retirement. Once service ends, delay becomes fatal and relief can be denied even if similarly situated employees earlier succeeded.

The Court further held that subsequent representations cannot extend limitation or confer a fresh cause of action, and that a litigant who sleeps over his rights for decades cannot invoke equitable writ jurisdiction.

Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as time-barred, with the Court declining to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction to reopen a decades-old claim.