IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.10622 of 2010 Date of Decision : October 14, 2010. Karnail Singh .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.K.R.Raju, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner seeks quashing of the communication dated 29.8.2008 (Annexure P-5) which is a reply to his legal notice intimating that some of his annual increments were not released due to non-passing of the departmental examination by him as per the P.W.D. Service Rules. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner was promoted as Sub Divisional Engineer on 10/11.7.1997 with a categoric stipulation that he will have to pass the departmental examination as per the P.W.D. Service Rules within a period of two years, failing which his annual increments will not be released. The petitioner accepted the said condition without any murmuring and continued to enjoy the promotional post without passing the departmental examination. After his retirement on 31.1.2008, the petitioner now seeks a mandamus to direct the respondents C.W.P.No .10622 of 2010 2 to release his annual increments which were due to him in the years 1998, 1999 and 2000. One of the pleas taken by the petitioner is that there was no condition in the Service Bye-laws for passing the departmental examination. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the records. In my considered view, no case to interfere with by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction is made out for more than one reasons. Firstly, the writ petition suffers with unexplained delay and latches. The condition for passing the departmental examination was imposed way back in the year 1997 and the petitioner's annual increments were with-held in the years 1998 to 2000. The challenge to the aforesaid action at this belated stage i.e. after a period of more than 10 years, cannot be entertained. Secondly, the petitioner is estopped by his own act and conduct. The petitioner's acceptance of conditional promotion dis-entitles him to assail the aforesaid condition at this belated stage. Thirdly, there is nothing in the Service Bye-laws to say that the annual increment was admissible as a matter of right. In order to bring efficiency in the public service, the respondents were well within their right to prescribe the passing of departmental examination as a condition precedent for the grant of service incentives. Dismissed. October 14, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE