IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.6069 of 2007 Date of decision: 22.03.2010 Tek Chand ….Petitioner versus Punjab State Electricity Board and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ------ Present: Mr. Pardeep Rajput, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Pavit Mattewal, Advocate, for respondents 1 to 5. Mr. Sandeep Khunger, Advocate, for respondent No.6. ----- 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? ----- K.Kannan, J (Oral) 1. The petitioner's claim for the one time bound promotion (OTBP), which was prescribed through a policy of the Electricity Board, was rejected by the impugned order dated 26.05.2006. In the order of rejection, it was stated that the issue of grant of the benefit of OTBP will be available only for persons, who had directly joined as an Assistant Lineman or a Lineman and the petitioner was himself a person, who had been promoted from a mazdoor and he had been directly promoted two places higher to a Lineman's post skipping still lower post of Assistant Lineman. Admittedly, the petitioner had superannuated in the year 2003 Civil Writ Petition No.6069 of 2007 - 2 - and the claim for the higher OTBP scales is made only subsequent to his superannuation. Earlier, he had sought for a similar prayer before this Court in a writ petition in Civil Writ Petition No.4108 of 2006 when this Court had directed that his representation should be considered and it is the disposal of this representation that has, according to the petitioner, given a cause of action for this writ petition. 2. Apart from the fact that the petitioner has retired from service and he has claimed the higher scales of pay after his retirement, even as per his contention, the petitioner was entitled to such a higher scale in the year 1984 when he had completed 9 years of service at the same post as Lineman. The petitioner's contention as his alleged entitlement to claim higher scale is a recurring cause of action and, therefore, a claim made, could not have been rejected. The right to claim higher scale or obtain the right arose in the year 1984 and when he was denied that right, the cause of action arose even at that time. The continuation of such a right even it were to be assumed, cannot be taken up after a person was superannuated in the year 2003. The claim of the petitioner is stale and no intervention is called for. The writ petition is dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 22 .03.2010 sanjeev