The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently delivered a significant judgment that serves as a stern reminder to government employees: legal rights must be exercised within a reasonable timeframe. The Court ruled that an employee cannot challenge a pay fixation error decades after it occurred, especially if they have already retired and remained silent during their entire service period.

In the case of Ajit Singh v. Punjab Mandi Board and others (CWP-1113-2026), Justice Harpreet Singh Brar dismissed a petition filed by a retired Mandi Supervisor, holding that "indolent litigants" (those who are lazy or careless about their rights) should not be encouraged by the courts.

The petitioner, Ajit Singh, joined the Punjab Mandi Board as a Chowkidar in 1979 and rose through the ranks to retire as a Mandi Supervisor on May 31, 2017.

His grievance dated back to January 1, 1996. He claimed that under the Revised Pay Rules of 1998, he was denied one annual increment. This resulted in his basic pay being fixed at ₹6,000 instead of ₹6,200. According to his counsel, this error had a "snowball effect," leading to lower pay throughout his career and reduced retirement benefits.

Although the petitioner pointed to internal department communications from 2020 and 2021 that allegedly acknowledged the "pay anomaly," the Court noted a glaring issue: he first officially raised this concern in August 2024—nearly seven years after his retirement and nearly 28 years after the alleged error first occurred.

In legal terms, pay fixation is often viewed as a "continuing wrong." This means that every month an employee receives a lower salary than they are entitled to, a fresh cause of action arises.

However, Justice Brar clarified the limits of this doctrine. Relying on the landmark Supreme Court ruling in M.R. Gupta v. Union of India and a Full Bench decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Saroj Kumari v. State of Punjab, the Court explained:

During Service: As long as an employee is actively working, they can challenge their pay fixation because the denial happens every month with the salary slip.
After Retirement: Once the employee retires, the "continuing wrong" ends. The employer-employee relationship ceases, and the fixation is no longer a recurring event. At this point, any delay in filing a case becomes fatal.

The Court observed that since Ajit Singh did not agitate his claim while in service, he could not use the "continuing wrong" argument to bypass the massive delay after his superannuation.

The High Court emphasized the legal principle of "Delay and Laches." This doctrine suggests that if you "sleep over your rights," the court may refuse to help you, even if your claim is technically correct.

Justice Brar quoted the Supreme Court’s observations in U.P. Power Corporation Limited v. Ram Gopal (2021):

"Fence-sitters cannot be allowed to barge into Courts and cry for their rights at their convenience, and vigilant citizens ought not to be treated alike with mere opportunists."

The Court noted that the petitioner failed to provide any "satisfactory reason" or "compelling circumstance" for waiting nearly three decades to seek a correction in his 1996 pay scale.

A common tactic used by litigants is to send multiple letters or "representations" to the government and then claim that the "date of the last rejection" is when their timeline starts.

The Court debunked this, citing State of Uttaranchal v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari (2013). The judge noted that making repeated representations does not keep a "dead issue" alive. A stale claim remains stale regardless of how many letters are written to the department.

The Court concluded that the petitioner remained silent throughout his service and for seven years after retirement. Reviving such a claim would be unfair to the administration and contrary to the principles of judicial discipline.

"Since the petitioner is no longer in service, the benefit of 'continuing wrong' is no longer available to him," the Court held, dismissing the writ petition.

Key Takeaways for Employees:

Be Vigilant: Check your pay fixation orders as soon as they are issued (especially after Pay Commission revisions).
Don't Wait for Retirement: If there is an anomaly, challenge it while you are still in service.
Avoid the "Fence-Sitter" Trap: Courts are increasingly reluctant to entertain old claims simply because a "similarly situated" colleague got a favorable judgment recently.

Case Details:

Case Title: Ajit Singh v. Punjab Mandi Board and others
Case No.: CWP-1113-2026
Date of Decision: January 19, 2026
Bench: Justice Harpreet Singh Brar