IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.1004 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.3.2010 Ravi Raj Khanna -----Appellant Vs. State of Punjab and another -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- Mr. Sunish Bindlish, Advocate for the appellant. --- Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against judgment of learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellant seeking direction to promote him to the post of Personal Assistant w.e.f 1.1.1986. 2. The appellant was employed as Senior Scale Stenographer in Irrigation department and retired from service on 31.12.1990. After his retirement, some other employee was promoted as Personal Assistant in the year 1992 on which the appellant also made a representation which was rejected. 3. Contention raised on behalf of the appellant was that the appellant should have been given promotion before his LPA No.1004 of 2009 (O&M) retirement as per recommendation of the Pay Commission to the effect that post of Senior Scale stenographer should be upgraded to the post of Personal Assistant. 4. Learned Single Judge rejected the said submission on the ground that no person junior to the appellant was given promotion during the service tenure of the appellant and no post was available. The post itself was created two years after retirement of the petitioner. Claim of the appellant was also held to be belated. Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Purushottam Lal and others v. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 1089, to the effect that there could not be discriminatory implementation of Pay Commission recommendation, was held to be distinguishable in these circumstances. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 6. It is not disputed that the appellant never raised grievance against non-upgradation of the post of Senior Scale stenographer till his retirement. Recommendations of Third Pay Commission were made in the year 1986, while the appellant retired in the year 1990. He raised grievance only after promotion was given to some other employee after his retirement. Recommendations of Pay Commission do not become operative automatically. In any case, the writ petition 2 LPA No.1004 of 2009 (O&M) filed 19 years after his retirement was rightly held to be belated. Judgment of this Court in Saroj Kumari v. State of Punjab, (1998) 3 PLR 123, relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant, to the effect that in case of recurring cause of action, principle of delay could not be applied, is not an inflexible rule and has to be applied from case to case. There is no principle that a person can move the Court at any time and the Court must entertain the same irrespective of the period of time when the Court is moved. Judgment is, thus, distinguishable in the facts of the present case. 7. We do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge. 8. The appeal is dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge March 19, 2010 (Alok Singh) ‘gs’ Judge 3