JUDGMENT 1. Seeking exception to an order dated 30.1.2015 passed by the writ Court in Writ Petition No.17119/2014, this appeal has been filed under section 2(1) of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005. 2. The appellant is presently holding the post of Junior Engineer in the respondent company and on 24.12.2001 the order was passed imposing stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. The petitioner immediately preferred an appeal in the year 2002, but when the appeal was not decided writ petition was filed in 2014 i.e. after about 11 years seeking quashment of the order of punishment or direction to decide the appeal. The learned writ Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches. 3. Learned counsel for appellant points out that in a case where the punishment is of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect every month when the appellant receives the salary he receive less amount and thereby his right is adversely effected. This continues life long and even after retirement while receiving pension, he will receive less amount by virtue of punishment order. That being so, Shri Ajeet Singh, learned counsel for appellant argued that the learned writ Court lost sight of this fact, so he prays for interference in this appeal. 4. We have considered the contention advanced by the appellant and find that merely because appellant has not filed the writ petition within time, that by itself would not be a ground for dismissing the writ petition on the ground of delay. The punishment imposed for stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect had adverse consequent effect even after the retirement of appellant. Every month less amount is received because of the punishment and even after retirement appellant will receive less pension.Once there is continuous effect of the impugned punishment order and when it has adverse effect even after retirement, it has a continuous consequence every month, therefore, we are of the considered view that the prayer of appellant should have been considered by the writ Court and in the facts and circumstances of the case and on the ground as indicated dismissal of petition was not called for. 5. 5. In view of aforesaid, we allow the appeal and direct the competent authority of respondent establishment to decide the appeal of appellant in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 6. With the aforesaid observation, the appeal stands allowed and disposed of. .....................